Go back and read that quote one more time, out loud, so you can really take in its significance. The whooping cough vaccine that all Australian children are exhorted to receive five doses of within their first five years of life, with compliance enforced through substantial financial penalties and (for many) the threat of exclusion from the benefits of preschool education,

• Does not prevent colonisation of the child's airways with Bordetella pertussis;
• Does not prevent a vaccinated child from passing B. pertussis to any other individual; and
• Does not have any community benefit in the form of herd immunity.

The only benefit that it offers is reduced risk of developing the clinical manifestation of B. pertussis colonisation, which is pertussis, or whooping cough. This is a selfish benefit in the sense that it only offers advantages to the vaccine recipient, rather than to the community.
​
In fact, if - as vaccine advocates claim - acellular pertussis vaccines prevent recipients from developing clinical manifestations of infection (at least for a limited time), then vaccinated children pose a greater hazard to the community because they could become 'silent spreaders', whereas unvaccinated children's symptoms alert their parents to seek medical attention (including diagnostic tests), and to keep their sick kids isolated at home until they're no longer infectious.

Nonetheless, parents who opt for other methods of protecting their children against serious pertussis illness besides vaccination are punished for their choices, even though those choices have no consequences for the health of others given that both unvaccinated and vaccinated children can contract and spread B. pertussis.
Thank you for reading Empowered! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Why doesn't the acellular pertussis vaccine prevent infection with, or spread of, B. pertussis? It's our old friend, mucosal immunity:
"Studies that have compared immune responses after natural B. pertussis infection and the administration of both wPVs [whole-cell pertussis vaccines, which have been replaced by acellular pertussis vaccines in the developed world but are still used in developing countries - more on that later] and aPVs have clearly shown that the immune stimulation evoked by aPVs is different from that due to natural infection and wPVs (49–51). Natural infection evokes both mucosal and systemic immune responses, while aPVs induce only a systemic immune response. As B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen and only exceptionally causes infection outside the respiratory tract, this difference is of particular importance in pertussis control. Mucosal immunity is essential to prevent colonization and transmission of B. pertussis organisms. Consequently, preventive measures such as aPVs that do not induce a valid mucosal response can prevent disease but cannot avoid infection and transmission. Animal studies have shown that natural infection is associated with a strong secretory IgA response in both the upper and lower airways and induction of resident memory T cells (TRM) (52, 53)... Natural infection was associated with the most persistent protection against nasal colonization and this correlated with potent induction of nasal tissue TRM cells. These animal data suggest that the lack of mucosal immune response after aPV administration might explain its lower efficacy when compared to wPVs and the shorter duration of protection compared to both wPV vaccination and natural infection." [emphasis added]

Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines
Hmmm, are you feeling that déjà vu-ey kind of feeling?
Natural immunity vs vaccine-induced immunityInfection with B. pertussis generates protection against another episode of whooping cough which can last for more than 30 years in some people, although 10 per cent of individuals lose protection within 10 years after infection. Importantly, natural immunity acquired from infection also prevents colonisation with, and transmission of, the bacteria to other people.
Whole-cell pertussis vaccines provide similar or slightly reduced duration of protection against clinical disease, and also against colonisation and transmission.
But acellular pertussis vaccines - again, this is the only type of pertussis vaccine used in Australia - protect against pertussis disease for a relatively brief period and as noted previously, do not prevent colonisation or transmission. Furthermore, the lousy performance of acellular pertussis vaccines isn't improved by tweaking the composition of the vaccine, altering the timing between shots, or adding booster doses:

"The duration of immunity after immunization with aPVs appears to be shorter [than either natural immunity or whole-cell pertussis vaccine-induced immunity], independent of the schedule used, the numbers, and concentrations of antigens included in each vaccine and the methods used to prepare the vaccines. Reports also suggested that pertussis occurred significantly earlier in subjects fully vaccinated with aPV than in those given wPV (41–43). Clark et al. (41) in 2012 reported that children who were fully immunized during infancy with an aPV had pertussis more often in the first years of school, while those given a wPV were at higher risk later, mainly during adolescence. Similar differences were demonstrated by Vickers et al. (43), who found that children who had received an aPV during infancy were already at risk of pertussis within the first 4 years of life, whereas those vaccinated with wPV did not contract pertussis until 5–9 years. Finally, Klein et al. (44) demonstrated that most of the pertussis cases diagnosed in adolescents during an outbreak were seen in individuals fully immunized during infancy with an aPV, rather than in those who had received wPV. Individuals receiving only aPV had five times higher odds of pertussis disease than those receiving wPV (OR 5.63, 95% CI 2.55–12.46). When aPV effectiveness (VE) was measured over time, its effectiveness was lower than that expected after wPV or natural infection (44). Early waning of immunity was reported regardless of the schedule used for immunization (44).

The addition of booster doses of aPV to prolong protection was also assessed. Although there was transient protection afforded by additional booster doses, the protection waned rapidly. A meta-analysis of 11 studies (45) that measured long-term immunity to pertussis after three or five doses of diphtheria-tetanus-aP (DTaP), according to the schedules used in many European countries and in the USA, respectively, did not reveal a significant difference between the annual odds of pertussis for the three or five dose regimens."

Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines
In fact, booster doses may backfire by inducing an increase in the production of IgG4 antibodies, which induce tolerance to B. pertussis rather than an appropriate immune system response, especially in children who received a primary course of acellular rather than whole-cell pertussis vaccine in infancy:

"The administration of aPV booster doses at 4 and 9 years of age was associated with an increase in the production of IgG4, regardless of the type of vaccine used for priming, but was significantly higher in aPV-primed children (66). IgG4 antibodies are unable to activate the complement system and lead to a suboptimal inflammatory response with impaired phagocytosis and antimicrobial defense, another potential mechanism for the lower efficacy of aPVs compared to wPVs (67). Moreover, the evidence that production of IgG4 after immunization with aPV increases with each dose seems to indicate that the protection offered by aPVs tends to be as shorter with each subsequent boosters (68, 69)."
Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines
Hang on a minute, what's that funny feeling I'm getting?

https://jessicar.substack.com/p/the-immunological-mechanism-of-action?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web


In a nutshell, not only do acellular pertussis vaccines offer limited personal benefit - protection against whooping cough - and zero community benefit - protection against infection and transmission - but they may even be a net harm in both cases, in that they permanently alter the immune response to Bordetella pertussis through the IgG4 class switching mechanism, and turn vaccinated people into potential silent spreaders, increasing the circulation of the bacteria in the general population:
"Lack of mucosal immune responses after aPV administration favor infection, persistent colonization, and transmission of the pathogen."
Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines
Why don't we go back to using the whole-cell pertussis vaccine?Good question. If it's nearly as good as natural immunity at preventing reinfection, albeit with a reduced duration of protection, and that benefit comes with a reduced risk of suffering pertussis disease, isn't that the best of both worlds?
If only life were that simple.
The reason that rich countries like Australia replaced whole-cell pertussis vaccines with acellular vaccines is that although pertussis case rates dropped after the whole-cell pertussis vaccines were added to the paediatric schedule, these vaccines were associated with a high rate of serious side effects, including:

• Protracted crying and screaming (often described by parents as "inconsolable");
• Shock or shock-like state, collapse, and hypotonic, hyporesponsive episodes (HHE); and
• High fever and febrile convulsions.

Many parents reported onset of seizure disorders, developmental delays and death of their infants in close temporal proximity to them receiving the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Vaccine manufacturers faced such an onslaught of lawsuits that many stopped producing the vaccine.
Widespread parent refusal of the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, while frustrating to public health authorities with their single-minded focus on disease elimination, was perfectly understandable: the death rate from pertussis had already declined by 90 per cent in wealthy, industrialised countries before mass vaccination campaigns began in the 1940s, due to increasing natural resistance, better living standards and the advent of antibiotic treatment of pertussis-associated pneumonia and bronchitis, and effective treatments for maintaining fluid balance in very young infants.
With whooping cough's incidence having long since decoupled from its mortality, as awareness of the dangers of the whole-cell pertussis vaccine mushroomed, many parents were no longer willing to subject their healthy children to a vaccine which had even a remote chance of severely injuring or killing them, in order to prevent a disease which, although distressing (especially in very young infants), was now highly treatable and rarely deadly.
But public health policymakers, concerned that whooping cough incidence would rebound if vaccine refusal continued to grow, pushed for the development of "a less reactive vaccine... based on isolated B. pertussis components that induced protective immune responses with fewer local and systemic reactions." These so-called acellular vaccines demonstrated "comparable short-term protection to the most effective wPVs with fewer local and systemic reactions" in clinical trials, and began supplanting whole-cell pertussis vaccines in most industrialised countries from the late 1980s (although Japan had already replaced the whole-cell pertussis vaccine with its home-grown acellular pertussis vaccine in 1981).
For a few years, it looked like the ideal solution to the pertussis problem had been found: a new class of vaccines that seemed to work as well as the old ones at taming whooping cough, but without the public-confidence-destroying side-effects. However, the triumph was short-lived:
"After over a decade of use, a rise in pertussis incidence was demonstrated in several industrialized countries, including Australia and the United States (18–22)."
Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis Vaccines
And that's how we got to where we are today: pertussis remains the second most frequently notified vaccine preventable disease in Australia despite 95 per cent compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule, and frank admission by 'the experts' (in the privacy of their academic journals) that even if we repeatedly vaccinated every man, woman and child in this country, we cannot, and will not, eradicate whooping cough with the vaccines we're using.
Meanwhile, in developing countries, whole-cell pertussis vaccines continue to be used because they are considerably cheaper than the acellular versions. According to extensive research led by Drs Peter Aaby and Christine Stabell-Benn, their use (in the form of the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, or DPT vaccine) is associated with more than double the risk of death in children in the small and desperately poor African country of Guinea-Bissau, with girls being particularly at risk. Their conclusion is chilling:
"Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality." [emphasis mine]
Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?
So no, returning to the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines is definitely not the answer.


The vaccine true believers hold fast to the notion that all we have to do to solve these problems is to develop better acellular pertussis vaccines. (Of course they do. Check out the Conflict of Interest notice on the WAidid/EVASG report:)
​

Pertussis Prevention: Reasons for Resurgence, and Differences in the Current Acellular Pertussis VaccinesBut, to quote that great Australian sage, Darryl Kerrigan, they're dreaming.
The dance between humans and pathogens has been going on since our species emerged, with the resultant "biological arms race" shaping the evolution of both we humans, and the microbes that seek to colonise us.
It is the height of hubris to believe that whooping cough, or any other infectious disease, can be conquered with more and better vaccines. As the pertussis vaccine saga has amply demonstrated, every move the vaccine developers make is met with a counter-move; it's fair to say that our ancient, wily adversary, Bordetella pertussis, now has them in checkmate.
But we don't have to play this no-win game. The dramatic decline in infectious disease mortality that preceded the introduction of vaccines not just for whooping cough, but for all other infectious diseases, occurred because of dramatic changes in human living conditions that improved overall health.
Instead of myopically focusing on 'fighting disease'; we need to build health, through human-appropriate nutrition; adequate physical activity, rest and sleep; meaningful and nurturing relationships; time spent outdoors, in nature; and a sense of purpose in life. None of these building-blocks of health turn a profit for Big Pharma or provide a paycheck for a so-called healthcare worker, but they're the most important investments you can make in yourself and your family.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/deja-vu-all-over-again-the-whooping
https://robynchuter.substack.com/​

Do vaccines increase or decrease the number of children who die in the first year of life? Two researchers set out to answer this question. You'll never guess what happened next.

Back in April 2022, I wrote two articles about the impact that the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ debacle has had on the confidence of the general public and the medical profession in vaccines in general. In the first of those articles, Why you need to stop saying “I’m not an antivaxxer, but…”, I mentioned the 8.93 per cent decline in Florida’s infant mortality rate that coincided with a marked drop in the percentage of children who were fully compliant with the CDC-recommended childhood vaccination schedule. Specifically, there was a 14.1 percentage point drop in children aged 24 to 35 months in the state who were ‘up to date’ with their shots, from 93.4 per cent in 2020 to 79.3 per cent in 2021, and a 5.8 percentage point drop in 1-2 year olds, from 73 per cent in 2020 to 67.2 per cent in 2021.

Huh. But aren’t vaccines supposed to reduce the number of infant deaths by protecting tiny babies with immature immune systems against dangerous infectious diseases? Well, that’s the theory. As I mentioned in that previous article, according to John and Sonia McKinlay’s exhaustive analysis of US data, medical interventions for infectious diseases (including vaccines, antibiotics and diphtheria toxoid) accounted for a measly 3.5 per cent of the steep reduction in total mortality that occurred between 1900 and 1973 in that country; most of that reduction was due to the dramatic decline in deaths from infectious disease. The vast bulk of the decline in infectious disease mortality was directly attributable to ‘old fashioned’ public health interventions including provision of clean water and uncontaminated food, sanitation, and improved housing standards.
And that brings me to three studies which grapple with the important question, ‘Do childhood vaccines help or hinder the attempt to reduce infant mortality?’ Reading and dissecting these studies is an object lesson in how science should and should not be conducted, and the types of statistical sleights-of-hand that researchers can use to torture the data until it confesses, even to crimes that were never committed.

These studies essentially constitute a debate between two teams of researchers, one calling vaccine orthodoxy into question, and the other staunchly defending it. Let’s step through these, in the order in which they were written:
Study #1: ‘Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?’This study, published in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology in 2011, was coauthored by Neil Miller and Gary Goldman. You might remember Goldman from my previous article, Backlash: How the vaccine pushers turned true believers into vaccine sceptics – Part 2. In 2002, he quit his job as a research analyst when his employer, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, refused to publish his discovery that their paediatric chickenpox vaccination campaign was associated with a dramatic increase in the incidence of shingles in both children and adults. This agency then collaborated with the CDC in a lengthy harassment campaign to try to prevent Goldman from publishing his findings independently.
Rather than being intimidated into silence, Goldman’s bruising experiences prompted him to become curious about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in general.

In collaboration with Miller, Goldman conducted a linear regression analysis on the relationship between infant mortality rates in 34 highly developed countries, and the number of vaccine doses on the immunisation schedules in those countries.

• Infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of children under 1 year of age, per 1000 live births.
• Linear regression is a statistical technique used for modelling the relationship between two factors, known as variables. In simple terms, it’s the first step that needs to be taken in the process of ascertaining whether a correlation between two variables is due to causation rather than coincidence.
• ​
  

The 34 countries selected for this analysis were the US – which, at 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year (as of 2011), has both the most intense vaccination schedule and the highest per capita spend on health care in the world – and the 33 countries that have a lower IMR than the jabbed-to-the-eyeballs leader of the free world.


Importantly, most of the nations included in this study had coverage rates in the 90–99 per cent range for the most commonly recommended vaccines – DTaP, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib (when these vaccines were included in the schedule), minimising the impact of any potential confounding effect of variability in coverage rates. Remember this – its importance will become evident when we discuss Study #2.
Here are the 34 countries with the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, as of 2009:

​

(Does it strike you as odd that Cuba has a lower IMR than the wealthy country that has maintained an embargo on it since 1962, crippling its economic development and hindering its access to medical supplies?)
And here are the number of vaccine doses on each nation’s vaccination schedule, as of 2008-2009:

From Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?After performing an initial exploratory analysis which indicated that there was indeed a relationship between the number of vaccine doses and IMR, Goldman and Miller then compared average IMRs between groups of nations whose vaccination schedules specified 12-14, 15-17, 18-20, 21-23 and 24-26 doses of vaccines before the age of 12 months. They produced the following chart, which indicates a statistically significant difference in IMRs between countries that give 12–14 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 21–23 doses (61 per cent higher infant mortality rate) and (b) those giving 24–26 doses (83 per cent higher IMR):


​

(For those unfamiliar with statistics, ‘r‘, or Pearson’s coefficient, represents the strength of association between two variables – in this case, number of vaccine doses and infant mortality rate. The value of r is always between +1 and –1. The closer to +1 r is, the stronger the positive association between the variables. The p value, or probability value, is a statistical measurement used to validate a hypothesis against observed data. The lower the p value (i.e. the smaller the number), the greater the statistical significance of the observed difference; or, in layman’s terms, the less likely it is that the result is due to simple random chance rather than a true association.)

In the discussion section of their paper, Goldman and Miller point out that many developing nations have extremely high vaccine coverage rates yet their IMRs continue to be appalling, and emphasise that no amount of vaccines will compensate for the absence of foundational public health measures:
“For example, Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR [infant mortality rate] is 68.8. Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an IMR of 39.9.8,9 These examples appear to confirm that IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved. Further reductions of the IMR must then be achieved in areas outside of these domains. As developing nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made.”

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
They go on to discuss the introduction of ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ to medical nomenclature in 1969, after national immunisation campaigns were initiated in the US in the 1960s, and its rapid rise to become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality by 1980. They speculate that overvaccination may impose a toxic burden on infants’ health, and call for rich nations with high vaccine doses and relatively high IMRs to “take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes”.
The response to this study by academics and policy-makers was deafening silence, until late in September 2021, when a professor from Brigham Young University, Elizabeth Bailey, and several of her students, produced an as-yet-unpublished paper which accused Goldman and Miller of “inappropriate data exclusion and other statistical flaws”. Which brings us to…
Study #2: ‘Infant Vaccination Does Not Predict Increased Infant Mortality Rate: Correcting Past Misinformation’This paper was first uploaded to the pre-print server medRxiv in September 2021. It has since undergone three revisions without yet being accepted for publication in any peer-reviewed journal.
It is a sign of the extraordinary times that we live in, that in the very title of their paper, the authors denigrate Goldman and Miller’s peer-reviewed, published study as “misinformation”. This is not how scientists behave when they wish to challenge each others’ views.

But as we shall see, this is not primarily a scientific paper, but a propaganda piece that explicitly aims to reduce the general ‘vaccine hesitancy’ that “has intensified due to the rapid development and distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine” – by which I presume they mean that the public has finally twigged to the fact that the inadequately-tested, rushed-to-market COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are neither safe nor effective, and are wondering whether their asleep-at-the-wheel regulatory agencies have been similarly lax with all the other vaccines that are pumped into them, and their children. (Hint: they have been.)
The authors begin their paper with the stock trope that vaccines are “viewed as one of the greatest public health successes of all time”. As examples of that success, they cite smallpox, poliomyelitis, measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b and unspecified “others”. Yet the McKinlay paper cited above concluded that medical measures made little to no impact on deaths from measles, diphtheria, smallpox and poliomyelitis in the twentieth century; the CDC acknowledges that tetanus mortality had already markedly decreased before routine vaccination began; rubella mortality was already negligible before a vaccine was developed (although this usually benign disease can wreak havoc on the developing foetus when contracted during pregnancy); and implementation of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination has resulted in an increase in infections caused by non-vaccine preventable strains, and antibiotic-resistant strains of the bacteria.
The authors then go on to claim that “addressing vaccine hesitancy by increasing public confidence in vaccine safety has the potential to positively impact public health and save lives”. To reiterate my earlier point, the contention that vaccines have, do, or will “save lives” is called into question by the McKinlay paper. Furthermore, the net public health impact of vaccination has never been assessed, as this would require a comparative longitudinal study of the overall health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups within the same population, and the CDC admits that it has not conducted such a study, nor does it hold any record of such a study.

Finally, the authors get down to the real purpose of the paper: discrediting Goldman and Miller’s study. They seem to be particularly bothered that “this manuscript is in the top 5% of all research outputs since its publication, being shared extensively on social media with tens of thousands of likes and re-shares” (perhaps especially since they can’t even manage to get their own paper published in a peer-reviewed journal after nearly a year and a half, let alone shared widely).
Their chief criticism is that Goldman and Miller cherry-picked data, selecting only 34 countries out of a dataset that included 185 countries. In addition, they accused Goldman and Miller of relying on vaccine schedules rather than data on actual vaccine doses administered.
They conclude that the chief determinant of IMR is actually the Human Development Index, and that, in complete contradiction to Goldman and Miller’s conclusions, “fewer vaccine doses in the schedule were predictive of higher infant mortality rate.”

How did Goldman and Miller respond to this critique of their paper? Let’s turn to…
Study #3: ‘Reaffirming a Positive Correlation Between Number of Vaccine Doses and Infant Mortality Rates: A Response to Critics’Published in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus on 2 February 2023, this paper examines the claims made in Study #2, and reanalyses the data from the original study published in 2011.
As always, I urge you to read the paper (and the other two referenced above) for yourself, but here’s my quick-and-dirty summary:

• Indiscriminately combining developing and developed nations with varying rates of vaccination and vast socioeconomic disparities, as the critics did for their reanalysis, introduces multiple confounding variables that were not present in the original analysis, which was confined to economically developed countries. It is not appropriate to group together for analysis countries as socioeconomically disparate as Belgium (IMR = 4.44) and Angola (IMR = 180.21), just because they both specify 22 vaccine doses in the first year of life. Likewise, it is not appropriate to group Chad, which has a coverage rate of 10 per cent for three doses of the hepatitis B vaccine, with economically developed countries that have greater than 90 per cent coverage, and not adjust for confounding.
• Despite these confounding variables, there was still a small but statistically significant correlation between total vaccine doses and IMRs in the reanalysis (r = 0.16 for the dataset of 185 countries, compared to r = 0.7 for the 30 countries with the lowest IMRs).
• The critics’ claim that the Human Development Index (HDI) – rather than number of vaccination doses – predicts IMR, is not justified, because of a number of well-known errors of misclassification in the HDI.
• There are significant flaws in the critics’ linear regression analysis of IMR as a function of percentage vaccination rates, which essentially invalidate their findings.
• The critics failed to count doses of vaccines accurately for several countries, because they relied on UNICEF data rather than cross-checking with each country’s published vaccination schedule. In the case of Indonesia, this resulted in the critics counting just seven vaccine doses, while the true number of doses administered is 18. They also reported only seven infant vaccine doses for Australia when the true value is 24.
• The critics excluded six countries from their analysis without explanation, and included five countries that should have been excluded because they have so few births, that their IMR is unstable.
• Goldman and Miller invited an independent statistician to conduct an odds ratio analysis on the original dataset, controlling for 11 different variables (including low birth weight, child poverty, and breast feeding), which confirmed their original findings of a strong correlation between vaccine doses and IMR.
• There were still statistically significant correlations between number of vaccine doses and IMR when they expanded their original analysis from the top 30 to the 46 nations with the best IMRs. After this point, there is too much heterogeneity between the socioeconomic conditions of nations for a consistent relationship between vaccine doses and IMR to be apparent.
• Replicating their original 2011 study using updated 2019 data corroborated the trend they found in the first paper, namely that the more vaccine doses, the higher the IMR.

Goldman and Miller summarised their response to the critics in the following table:

Table 1: Data characteristics and linear regression analysis outcomes of original Miller-Goldman study and the reanalysis by Nysetvold et al. aWhen the residuals are not normally distributed, the hypothesis is that they are not from a random dataset. The amount of residual error in the model is inconsistent across the full range of observed data. bThe model is sensitive to these outliers that represent poor quality data from Third World nations with the highest IMRs. This has the effect of changing the magnitude of the correlation coefficient and altering both the slope and y-intercept of the best-fit line.  cThe linear regression analysis of Nysetvold et al. is irredeemably confounded due to varying vaccination rates and socioeconomic disparities between developed and Third World nations that have the effect of attenuating the significant positive correlation between IMR and number of vaccine doses that was found among nations with top-ranked IMRs.

It gets even worse. In the supplementary material for the paper, Goldman and Miller reveal that in earlier versions of their critics’ paper, the authors made several libellous statements that were so egregious that
“an attorney contacted a faculty chairman to inform the Bailey team that their article sets a poor example to students that libel is acceptable, and suggested that they remove their malicious and false statements prior to going forward with publication. Although this language was adjusted in later versions, it served to reveal author bias and demonstrated a misunderstanding and misuse of basic scientific methodologies.”
The original version of the paper also made false claims about the funding source for Goldman and Miller’s paper, and, despite claiming that they used an “identical dataset” for IMRs as that which was used in Study #1, they in fact used a different dataset retrieved from an alternate resource containing less recent IMR data; as one example, “the IMR for Sierra Leone in the CIA dataset that we used is 81.86 but the Bailey team has it listed as 154.43 and used this figure in their analyses.”
But yeah, apart from all that, it was quality work.
Thank you for reading Empowered! This post is public so feel free to share it.


Goldman and Miller go on to discuss the biological plausibility of an association between infant vaccination and sudden infant death, citing:

• The abrupt disappearance of the category ‘sudden [infant] death’ in Japan when Japanese authorities raised the age of pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination from three months to two years;
• A 1987 study which found that infants died at a rate more than seven times greater than expected in the period zero to three days following DTP vaccination when compared to the period beginning 30 days post-vaccination;
• A 2021 analysis by Miller of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data which found that 58 per cent of the 2605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 to 2019 occurred within three days post-vaccination, and 78 per cent occurred within seven days post-vaccination;
• Compensation has been paid to parents of children who died after receiving vaccines, with acknowledgement that vaccines drive the production of cytokines which can interfere with the brain’s ability to regulate breathing, resulting in the abrupt cessation of breathing that characterises sudden infant death syndrome.

They concluded that
“A positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses and IMRs is detectable in the most highly developed nations but attenuated in the background noise of nations with heterogeneous socioeconomic variables that contribute to high rates of infant mortality, such as malnutrition, poverty, and substandard health care.”

Reaffirming a Positive Correlation Between Number of Vaccine Doses and Infant Mortality Rates: A Response to Critics
Why does this matter?The significance of this tale of three papers goes way beyond a somewhat entertaining spat between two teams of data nerds. (“Cop this regression analysis straight in your goolies! Right back at you with a devastating odds ratio analysis to your solar plexus!”)

The salient difference between Goldman and Miller, and Elizabeth Bailey and her coauthors, is that the former are independent researchers while the latter are attached to an educational institution. As evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein frequently point out in their Dark Horse podcast, universities have been entirely captured by an entity that might be described as the medical-academic-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. Their apparatchiks, like Elizabeth Bailey, perform something that has the cosmetic appearance of science but is definitively not science, in the sense of conforming to the scientific method and the attitude of radical scepticism that underpins it.

If you recall Gary Goldman’s story, which I recounted in Backlash: How the vaccine pushers turned true believers into vaccine sceptics – Part 2, he took a job as a research analyst with the LA County Health Department having never questioned the safety or effectiveness of vaccines. However, when the data that he was analysing indicated that chickenpox vaccination was leading to significant harm in the form of increased incidence of shingles, Goldman followed those data where they led, even though this meant revising his entire belief system (not to mention losing his job and suffering significant harassment by his former employer).
​
The lesson of the last three years of COVIDiocy has been that only a tiny minority of scientists display this level of integrity and commitment to uncovering the truth and disseminating it to the public. And when they do so, they are vehemently opposed by the majority, who have, through some strange quirk of human psychology, assumed the interests of the medical-academic-pharmaceutical-industrial complex as their own.
Substacker El Gato Malo (the Bad Cat) frequently writes of the politicisation of science and the need to open data to public scrutiny and crowd-source its analysis through a genuine peer review system. This is the way of the future. Open the books. Free the data. Question everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=-348hoZNidA&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Frobynchuter.substack.com%2F&feature=emb_logo


(Wow. That didn’t age well.)

Remember when the authorities who told you they were completely safe and effective, admitted that they ‘very rarely’ cause myocarditis and pericarditis (collectively called ‘myopericarditis’)? You almost certainly do.
Remember when those authorities told you that you should take them anyway, and give them to your kids, because the risk of developing myopericarditis (or other cardiac pathologies) as a complication of COVID-19 was greater than the risk of developing it as an adverse reaction to the experimental transfection agent? And remember when they told you that this very very rare myopericarditis was very very mild? I’ll bet you do.

Remember when a cohort study of 23.1 million residents across four Nordic countries found that the risk of developing myocarditis in the 28 days after two injections of the Pfizer transfection agent was 5.31 times higher in males 16 to 24 years of age than it was in the pre-‘vaccination’ period, during which SARS-CoV-2 was widely circulating? In 16-24 year old males who received two shots of the Moderna product, the risk was 13.83 times higher than in the pre-‘vaccination’ period. Oh, you don’t remember this study being loudly trumpeted by the corporate media? Funny, that. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that this study clearly showed that the risk of injection-induced myocarditis in young men far exceeded their risk of infection-induced myocarditis, could it?

Remember when researchers found that the incidence of myopericarditis was 162.2 per million after dose two in US males aged 12–15 (that’s a risk of 1 case of myopericarditis per 6200 boys who received two doses), and 93 per million in males aged 16–17 (risk of 1 in 10,800), compared to a background rate of 2.1/million cases per week in boys); that 86.9 per cent of patients were hospitalised (does that sound ‘mild’ to you?); and that the risk of being hospitalised for myopericarditis after two shots of mRNA transfection agent was 2.8 times higher than the risk of being hospitalised for/with COVID in boys aged 12–15, and 1.6 times higher in boys aged 16–17? You mightn’t remember this one, because the pro-injection ‘experts’ tried to bury it, insisting that it was inappropriate to use the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which was set up by the US government to detect safety signals from vaccines, to conduct research on a safety signal of a vaccine. Because Science™.
​
Remember when Swedish researchers published a report on the autopsy findings on 37 people who had died at the Karolinska University Hospital of acute respiratory distress syndrome attributed to COVID-19, and found no replicating SARS-CoV-2 in the heart tissue of the deceased people, and no indications of myocarditis?
“Furthermore, any sign of virus-induced cytopathic effects or any antiviral lymphocytic reaction typical for viral myocarditis was not detected in any cases. Also, signs of antiviral inflammation were not observed. Some studies claim there is a sign of lymphocyte infiltration in the Covid-19 heart [24]. For example, multifocal lymphocytic myocarditis was observed in a small fraction of the cases in a multicenter COVID-19 pathological study [25]. Furthermore, quantitative analysis of inflammatory infiltrates in COVID-19 hearts showed a higher number of CD68+ cells proposing that COVID-19 may cause a different type of myocarditis than conventional viral myocarditis, one that is associated with diffusely infiltrative monocyte/macrophage cells [26]. However, we didn’t detect any lymphocyte or granulocytic infiltration in the Covid-19 cohort as a hallmark of myocarditis.”
​
Morphological changes without histological myocarditis in hearts of COVID-19 deceased patients
No? You don’t remember that one? I guess it didn’t quite fit the narrative that COVID-19 myocarditis was much more dangerous than injection-induced myocarditis, did it?
Remember when an international team of researchers published a review of all the reports that they could find of people who died of/with COVID-19 in the pre-injection era (a total of 548 deceased people), whose autopsy reports identified cardiovascular pathologies, and found a “low prevalence of myocarditis in COVID-19”?
“The median reported prevalence of extensive myocarditis, multifocal active myocarditis, and focal active myocarditis were all 0.0%, and the median prevalence of inflammatory infiltrate without myocyte damage was 0.6%.”
COVID-19–Associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review
If you don’t remember it, that’s probably because it received next to no publicity. I wonder why.

Finally, do you remember when Israeli researchers published a cohort study of almost 200 000 people, comparing rates of myopericarditis for which hospitalisation was required (i.e. moderate to severe cases), in the pre-injection era, in people who had had COVID-19 (defined as at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2; yes, I know this is a nonsensical diagnostic criterion but it’s the one the Branch Covidians use, so I’m happy to see them hoist with their own petard), to rates in those who had not… and finding that there was no increase in rates of either myocarditis or pericarditis in people who had had COVID? The rate of myocarditis in post-COVID-19 patients was 0.0046 per cent, while in the control group who had never had COVID-19 it was… 0.0046 per cent. 0.0056 per cent of post-COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with pericarditis, compared to 0.0088 per cent of controls.

What? You haven’t heard of this study? Your doctor didn’t tell you about it, even though it was published in April of last year?
Well, if you weren’t told about any of these studies before being injected with a novel RNA transfection agent, you weren’t given informed consent. If you were told that your teenage son’s risk of getting myocarditis was higher if he got COVID than if got the shot, neither of you was given informed consent (in fact, you were outright lied to). As the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) has pointed out in a letter sent to all Australian doctors on 11 January 2023, the federal government, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Australian Immunisation Handbook all oblige Australian doctors and other vaccination providers to obtain informed consent before administering any treatment, including vaccines (or products deceptively labelled as vaccines).
“For consent to be legally valid…It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation…It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person.”

Australian Immunisation Handbook
Furthermore, AMPS notified doctors that they do not have any government liability protection with respect to the novel COVID-19 transfection agents. And do you know what that means? If you, or a loved one, developed myopericarditis (or any other adverse event that your doctor should reasonably have known about) after receiving a COVID-19 injection, and you were not informed of the risk of this event prior to being injected, you can sue the person who administered the product to you.

Can you imagine how quickly this entire disastrous enterprise could be stopped, if every single person who suffered an adverse reaction, and every single person who lost a loved one, sued the ‘vaccine’ provider for failing to give them informed consent? Professional indemnity insurance premiums would shoot through the roof, doctors and other vaccine providers would refuse to administer the shots for fear of being sued… and who knows, doctors might even remember that their role is to care for their individual patients, not to serve as the commissars of the biosecurity state.
P.S. If you are part of, or know of, a legal firm willing to represent people injured by the experimental injections, please provide contact details in the comments section below.

Legal firms who may be able to assist you with filing suit against a vaccine provider who did not give you informed consent:

​https://www.advocateme.com.au/
https://aflsolicitors.com.au/about
http://woodburnsolicitors.com/home.html
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/

How did we get to the point where anyone who asks even the most commonplace question about vaccines is reflexively reviled and dismissed as an "antivaxxer"?

In Part 1 of this series, I explored the ways that researchers aligned with the vaccine-industrial complex frame “vaccine hesitancy” amongst the public.

Part 2 delved into the full-spectrum warfare that is launched on any clinician or researcher who uncovers data that contradict the dogma that all vaccines that gain regulatory approval are “safe and effective”.
​
But how did we get to the point where anyone who asks even the most commonplace question about vaccines is reflexively reviled as an “antivaxxer”, a pejorative which permits instant dismissal of any consideration of their question? How did vaccines become such a sacred cow?

The Church of Modern MedicineWhen I was in my early twenties, I read Confessions of a Medical Heretic by Dr Robert Mendelsohn. Mendelsohn’s conceptualisation of the Church of Modern Medicine, with its priests (doctors), temples (hospitals), rituals (such as useless and possibly harmful annual check-ups), sacraments (pills, procedures and injections) and, of course, heresies (such as rejecting the sacraments of Modern Medicine in preference for other ways of understanding health and disease), resonated strongly with me.
This framing helped me make sense of much of the strange behaviour I had already witnessed in close family members. Why would intelligent and competent adults who routinely invested considerable time and effort in researching which toaster to buy, or which tradesman to hire to renovate their bathroom, simply do anything their doctor said without question? Because they believed in their doctor. As Mendelsohn wrote,
“Modern Medicine can’t survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion.
One definition of religion identifies it as any organized effort to deal with puzzling or mysterious things we see going on in and around us. The Church of Modern Medicine deals with the most puzzling phenomena: birth, death, and all the tricks our bodies play on us—and we on them—in between. In The Golden Bough, religion is defined as the attempt to gain the favor of ‘powers superior to man, which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.'”

But Mendelsohn’s metaphor of Western medicine as a religion didn’t fully explain how vaccines, in particular, had become sacrosanct to researchers and policy-makers.
It’s relatively easy to put one over on the public, most of whom have precious little knowledge of even their most basic bodily functions (which I consider to be a major failing of our schooling system), let alone the complexities of individual and herd immunity and how mass vaccination programs have interfered with both.
And it’s easy to dupe doctors too, since they receive only the most rudimentary ‘education’ – if you can even call it that – on vaccines, as was acknowledged by Vaccine Confidence Project director Heidi Larson in her presentation to the World Health Organisation’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit on 3 December 2019:
“In medical school you’re lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.”Heidi Larson: ‘Vaccine Safety in the Next Decade: Why we need new modes of trust building?’


But it should be harder to sucker scientists. After all, science is supposed to be defined by scepticism – the relentless questioning of everything, even (and perhaps especially) those things that “everybody knows” are true. The scientist is meant to take nothing on faith, to demand evidence for every assertion, to assiduously search for and then determinedly point out facts that contradict every hypothesis, and to be prepared to abandon even the most well-established theory if sufficient evidence accumulates against it.
At least, that’s what we’re told that scientists do. The reality is very different.

The vaccine-industrial complexIn his farewell address before handing over the office of President of the United States to John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the dangers to liberty and democracy posed by the multi-headed hydra that he described as “the military-industrial complex”.

Eisenhower coined this term to refer to the incestuous relationship between the military, the defence contractors who supply it, and the congresscritters who benefit from the flows of money between the two by receiving campaign financing, insider information and the promise of lucrative consulting gigs after they leave office, in return for approving military spending.
As you read these words (or listen to them, starting at 8 minutes 40 seconds in) spoken by the five-star general who founded the Psychological Warfare Branch of the Allied forces during World War II, notice how they apply equally to the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, and most particularly, the vaccine-industrial complex.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961)


Now, ask yourself, has there been “unwarranted influence” from the vaccine-industrial complex in public policy? Yes, without a doubt. The supernova-scale expansion of the childhood vaccination schedule in my lifetime, and the tying of vaccination status to access to government benefits and preschool education, was not driven by any genuine threat to public health posed by infectious diseases. These had ceased to be a significant contributor to serious illness and death in children (and indeed in the whole population) long before vaccines were widely employed:

Has “the weight of this combination endanger[ed] our liberties or democratic processes”? Hell, yes. Anyone who has lost their job, or been barred from visiting their loved one in a nursing home or hospital, or travelling, or dining in a restaurant, or going to the cinema – and all without any public consultative process being followed – because they didn’t accept a COVID-19 injection can attest to this.

Has the enterprise of science become dominated by government-funded (that is, taxpayer-funded) research and contracts? Self-evidently so. The development of expensive, patented COVID-19 injections that have reaped record profits for their liability-free manufacturers was bankrolled by government funding:
“Out of $5.9 billion in investment [in COVID-19 injection research and development] tracked up to March 2021, 98.12% was public funding. The money primarily went to private companies with both Moderna and Janssen receiving more than $900 million. Pfizer and BioNTech, who developed the first Covid-19 vaccine authorized in the United States, received some $800 million in R&D funding. Practically all of the money invested in the three companies came from public funding.”
Which Companies Received The Most Covid-19 Vaccine R&D Funding?
Meanwhile, promising treatments including nutraceuticals and repurposed, out-of-patent drugs were left to wither on the vine, with trials funded only by outsiders to the pharmaceutical-industrial complex.

Finally, has “public policy… itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”? Again, the answer is unquestionably yes. So-called “public servants” who have assumed dictatorial powers since the inception of the manufactured COVID crisis, have repeatedly refused to release the data on which their draconian restrictions were supposedly based, for the scrutiny of the public that pays their salaries. US Chief Medical Adviser for COVID Response, Anthony Fauci, has asserted that he “represents science” and hence that anyone who questions his pronouncements is mounting an “attack” on him which constitutes an “attack on science“. College drop-out and convicted antitrust violator Bill Gates decreed that the only way “the world will be able to go back to the way things were in December before the coronavirus pandemic… is… when we have an almost perfect drug to treat COVID-19, or when almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.”
This self-appointed “scientific-technological elite” feels no obligation to justify its actions to the public, let alone consult them on the policies they inflict upon them. You and I are supposed to just sit down, shut up, and do as we’re told by “the experts”. This is, of course, the complete antithesis of the scientific method.

It stands to reason that those at the top of the scientific totem pole, who have proved themselves useful foot soldiers to the captains of industry, should be the most vocal supporters of policies that privilege corporate profits over public good. But why don’t we hear more dissenting voices from among the rank and file?

From scientist to salespersonAs Bret Weinstein has pointed out, the application of the scientific method requires a steadfast commitment to attempting to disconfirm your own hypothesis – even, and especially, if you desperately want to prove that it’s correct.
However, the system by which scientific work is funded requires scientists to effectively become salespeople for their hypotheses in order to win grants, which prevents them from thinking and functioning as scientists (listen below, or start watching at 19 minutes, 10 seconds in):
Furthermore, peer review – developed as a quality control assurance mechanism to ensure poorly-conducted or fraudulent science doesn’t get published – was revealed by the Climategate scandal to have devolved into a system for suppressing any voices of dissent from the dominant paradigm.

And, counterintuitively, the more scientific papers are published in a particular field, the less innovative and more conformist the scientists working within it become. As a paper titled ‘Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science’
explains,
“A deluge of papers does not lead to turnover of central ideas in a field, but rather to ossification of canon…
A novel idea that does not fit within extant schemas will be less likely to be published, read, or cited. Faced with this dynamic, authors are pushed to frame their work firmly in relationship to well-known papers, which serve as ‘intellectual badges’ (19) identifying how the new work is to be understood, and discouraged from working on too-novel ideas that cannot be easily related to existing canon.”
Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science
For an incisive but concise analysis of the impact of this “ossification of canon” on the manufactured COVID crisis, read Eugyppius’ superb article:
eugyppius: a plague chronicle
Study: The larger a scientific field, the more conformist that field becomes, and the more lethargic its progress
A leitmotif of this plague chronicle is the profound decadence and dysfunction of modern academia. Following the Science would be inadvisable even if we had some semblance of science. Instead, alas, we have a massive, overbuilt, over-enrolled university apparatus that primarily caters to the careerist concerns of students, researchers and teachers. It i…
Read more
25 days ago · 377 likes · 166 comments · eugyppius

To summarise, Western medicine has taken on cult-like qualities in order to fill the religion-shaped hole left by secularisation, the vaccine-industrial complex has co-opted “public health” policy which now serves its own interests rather than those of the public, and science has devolved into “a factory, not of free inquiry, but of conformity”..

What can we do to fix this mess? Fortunately, some of the work is inadvertently being done for us, by the vaccine-industrial complex itself.
BacklashIn the study on the suppression of scientific discourse on vaccine safety which I referenced in Part 2, respondents referred to one more consequence of the relentless attacks on their academic freedom and medical ethics, which the authors dubbed a “backfire effect” or “censorship boomerang”, defining this as “a counter-reaction that draws more attention to the opponents’ position”.
They go on to point out that
“In the field of vaccination, signs of a boomerang effect can be found in the growing number of groups expressing dissenting views on vaccines on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter… Studies examining the growing global phenomenon of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ usually link it with the activities of such ‘anti-vaxx’ groups.”
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners
Why would vilifying scientists and clinicians who speak up about vaccine harms cause more people to be curious about what they have to say? Because, contrary to what the “scientific-technological elite” would have you believe, the average person isn’t stupid. He or she understands intuitively that when an immensely powerful force exerts considerable time, money and effort to utterly crush a powerless lone doctor or scientist, it embodies George R. R. Martin’s pithy saw, “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say”.
Or, to put it in more sober academic-speak,
“Suppression of critical voices in science violates scientific principles, prevents a substantive discussion in a controversial field, and may establish a pattern of unfair conduct that diminishes public confidence in science and medicine.”
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners
And of course, scientists who wander naively into the vaccine-industrial complex buzzsaw may, if they have sufficient courage and integrity, be provoked to dig deeper and share what they learn about the nature of the beast that has tried to swallow them whole, with the public.
Gary Goldman (whom we met in Part 2) was a computer scientist and inventor (he developed the first microcomputer-based computer aided drafting [CAD] system) who probably never would have given vaccines a second thought, if the CDC hadn’t hired him to analyse the impact of the chickenpox vaccine, and then engaged in a protracted harassment campaign to attempt to prevent him from publishing the harms that he had discovered. Goldman went on to become a health advocate and found a journal, Medical Veritas, devoted to promoting increased awareness of vaccine adverse reactions, depoliticising public health, and retooling the current Big Pharma-dominated disease-treatment system into a true health-care system. Nice work, CDC.
An end to faith-based medicine?While we can all draw inspiration from beacons of integrity like Gary Goldman, at the end of the day we have to recognise that no one is coming to prise us from the tentacles of the self-appointed “scientific-technological elite” that Eisenhower foresaw. It’s up to us to opt out of the control system that they wish to impose on us – for our own good, of course – by taking responsibility for ourselves in every sphere of life in which we’re being shunted into passive dependency on the structures and institutions that they have created.
Taking responsibility for our own health – through eating a wholefood plant-centric diet, daily physical activity, prioritising sleep and rest, cultivating meaningful social connections and centering our lives around purpose and service – is an obvious first step.
As Robert Mendelsohn wrote back in 1979,
“Modern Medicine relies on faith to survive. All religions do. So heavily does the Church of Modern Medicine rely on faith that if everyone somehow simply forgot to believe in it for just one day, the whole system would collapse. For how else could any institution get people to do the things Modern Medicine gets people to do, without inducing a profound suspension of doubt? Would people allow themselves to be artificially put to sleep and then cut to pieces in a process they couldn’t have the slightest notion about—if they didn’t have faith? Would people swallow the thousands of tons of pills every year—again without the slightest knowledge of what these chemicals are going to do—if they didn’t have faith?”
Confessions of a Medical Heretic, p. xiv
And, I would add, would people allow themselves and their children to be injected with novel substances that have no long-term safety data, if they didn’t have faith?
If you want to place your faith in anything, have faith in the self-healing capacity of your own body. There’s a role for medicine, of course, in limited circumstances such as physical trauma, acute heart conditions and serious infections. But for the vast majority of ailments for which people seek medical advice, the bon mot attributed (probably incorrectly) to Voltaire rings true:
“The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.”

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/backlash-how-the-vaccine-pushers-6c8
https://robynchuter.substack.com/

Where there is risk, there must be proper, informed consent. The implications of vaccine shedding effects on unvaccinated contacts must be part of this conversation. Where heath policy and laws protect individuals from wild virus shedding but not vaccine virus shedding, these contradictions should be assessed and rectified. We need to consider whether, as a society, we think that transmissible diseases and associated interventions should be managed socially, at the level of individual and community, or whether they should be managed legally, by state and federal governments. These are big questions. I’d love to see them parsed out in the public discourse.

FURTHER READING

Health Australia Monkeypox Info Page HERE
ATAGI Guidance on Vaccination Against Monkeypox HERE
ACAM2000 Product Info HERE
ACAM2000 Consumer Info Sheet HERE
RX LIST ACAM2000 Product Summary HERE
JYNNEOS Info Sheet HERE
RX LIST JYNNEOS Product Summary HERE
*Acknowledging that STIs can be viral or bacterial

What happens when clinicians and researchers uncover data that contradict the dogma that all approved vaccines are "safe and effective"?
In Part 1 of this series, I explored the ways that researchers aligned with the vaccine-industrial complex frame “vaccine hesitancy” amongst the public.
This post will focus on the other side of that coin: the challenges faced by clinicians and researchers who uncover data that contradict the dogma that all vaccines that gain regulatory approval are – say it with me now – “safe and effective”.



​Suppression of DissentIn a paper titled ‘Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners’ four Israeli academics presented a qualitative analysis of the experiences of physicians, nurses and researchers who had taken a critical view on vaccines.
These well-credentialled professionals, whose names were withheld by the researchers to protect them from further harassment and discrimination, reported experiencing a wide variety of censorship and suppression tactics, including:

• Defamation in legacy media and online, with clear intent to besmirch the reputation and destroy the livelihood of any clinician or scientist who questions vaccine safety and efficacy, and generally perpetrated by people or organisations that refuse to provide proof of their claims or engage in any kind of debate with their targets. Some respondents “pointed to what they viewed as an organized system designed to locate and attack critical publications on vaccines, aimed at undermining their authors’ credibility and delegitimizing them by referring [to] them as distributors of ‘fake news,’ misinformation and conspiracies that endanger public health”.
  
• Online censorship, with Wikipedia providing a particularly striking example:
  

“If I try to add a line in Wikipedia about research against the measles vaccine for example – it will be removed immediately … Who censors Wikipedia? The answer is simple: the industry pays money to scientists and academics to enter information, track, and erase if necessary. (doctor)“
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners

• Retraction of papers which had already undergone peer review and been published. Respondents reported that while publishers cited spurious concerns about methodological errors as the reason for the retraction, the real motivations were “politico-economic rather than scientific”, usually related to conflicts of interest involving the pharmaceutical industry.
  

“It’s blatant censorship of a topic, because of my perspective… there’s no other way to understand this, except for content restriction on my work. I mean, I was publishing in peer reviewed journals, I was being called to testify in states around the country… It was perspective related. If I had done pro-vaccine slanted, it would be fine. (researcher)“
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners

• Denial of research grants. Several respondents who had successfully obtained grants for non-vaccine-related topics reported that that they were unable to obtain any funding for research on the topic of vaccine safety. The following vignette is particularly chilling:
  

“One well-established researcher we interviewed was no longer able to get grants for research on any topic after publishing a paper that raised potential concerns about the safety of vaccines:
I used to get all my funding from the normal sources – governments, charities, our research council industry. I do not get any of that funding anymore. All our research funding now comes from philanthropy… Now I do not even bother putting in applications to these organizations. We need to try to get funding through philanthropy to continue… (researcher)
Subsequent to our interview, the university administration also suspended his funding from philanthropic sources.”
Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners

• Calls for dismissal, being summoned for a hearing by their country’s Ministry of Health and/or medical licencing boards, and suspension or revocation of medical licence. Many respondents reported being subjected to these psychologically and financially costly forms of censure after publishing adverse data on vaccine safety, treating vaccine-injured patients, or publicly questioning vaccine safety and/or efficacy. They perceived that these actions were intended not only to punish them, but to deter other researchers and health professionals from publicly airing concerns about vaccines, resulting in self-censorship which fosters the narrative that practitioners and academics are in complete consensus on vaccine safety and efficacy.
  

When considered in toto, these tactics fulfill the criteria for “suppression of dissent”, that is, suppression of individuals and/or their research that is “carried out by those with a higher power or rank in the hierarchy, against others below them, and one that cannot be justified by conventional scientific or academic criteria alone”.
This suppression of dissent inevitably results in “violation of freedom of speech, violation of ethical principles of science, and neglect of important areas of research”. And the public is the biggest loser in this corrupt game.
Gary Goldman and the Great Shingles Cover-UpThe travails of Gary Goldman provide a vivid real-life case study of the suppression of dissent described by the anonymous respondents in the Israeli academics’ study.
As described in the book The Chickenpox Vaccine: A new epidemic of disease and corruption, and summarised in an interview conducted by Neil Miller, in 1995 Goldman was hired by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, to serve as the sole Research Analyst on a CDC-funded project to study the effects of the newly-introduced varicella vaccine on the incidence of both chickenpox and shingles.
The CDC eagerly published Goldman’s positive findings – an almost 80 per cent reduction in chickenpox cases from the licensure of the varicella vaccine in March 1995 through to 2000.
But when he began to detect evidence of both waning vaccine efficacy and harms inflicted by the vaccination program (in the form of a dramatic upswing in the incidence of shingles in both children and adults, especially in those who had already had chickenpox), Goldman encountered escalating opposition from the agency.
The CDC refused to publish his negative findings on the varicella vaccine, omitted any discussion of the precipitous rise in the rate of shingles from its published cost-benefit analyses of the vaccination program, and eventually, in 2002, ordered Goldman not to pursue any further studies of shingles.
Disgusted and appalled, Goldman resigned from his position in order to be able to publish his results, and to, as he put it, not “be a participant in what I perceived was research fraud”.
However, when he attempted to publish his concerning findings on shingles in a medical journal, the Los Angeles County Legal Department served him with a notice to “cease and desist” from publishing any information he had gathered as part of his employment.
At his own expense, Goldman retained an attorney to resolve the legal issues, and subsequently was able to publish his findings in the journal Vaccines (here, here and here). However, the CDC contacted the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, claiming that the data Goldman used in his analyses were confidential and he had no right to them. Goldman faxed Elsevier’s senior publishing editor the letter his attorney had sent to the LA County Legal Department, and assumed the matter was resolved when he received no response.
But CDC hadn’t given up its harassment campaign. As Goldman explained,
“Another one of my studies (16) that modeled additional costs associated with the universal varicella vaccination program due to the increased rates of HZ [herpes zoster - shingles] was postponed for an entire year from appearing in the print edition of Vaccine after Elsevier received a complaint from the CDC. Resolution of this delay required intervention by my attorney.”
Interview with Gary Goldman, PhD on CDC suppression of undesirable vaccine data


Goldman summarised his findings on the impact of varicella vaccine on shingles incidence in a 2013 publication, as follows:
“In a cooperative agreement starting January 1995, prior to the FDA’s licensure of the varicella vaccine on March 17, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Los Angeles Department of Health Services’ Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project (AV-VASP)… Varicella [chickenpox] case reports decreased 72%, from 2834 in 1995 to 836 in 2000 at which time approximately 50% of children under 10 years of age had been vaccinated. Starting in 2000, HZ [herpes zoster, commonly known as shingles] surveillance was added to the project. By 2002, notable increases in HZ incidence rates were reported among both children and adults with a prior history of natural varicella. However, CDC authorities still claimed that no increase in HZ had occurred in any US surveillance site. The basic assumptions inherent to the varicella cost–benefit analysis ignored the significance of exogenous boosting caused by those shedding wild-type VZV [varicella zoster virus – the causative agent of both chickenpox and shingles]. Also ignored was the morbidity associated with even rare serious events following varicella vaccination as well as the morbidity from increasing cases of HZ among adults. Vaccine efficacy declined below 80% in 2001. By 2006, because 20% of vaccinees were experiencing breakthrough varicella and vaccine-induced protection was waning, the CDC recommended a booster dose for children and, in 2007, a shingles vaccination was approved for adults aged 60 years and older. In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased HZ morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.”
Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, cost-effectiveness, and vaccine efficacy based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data
After Goldman’s devastating exposé was published, the CDC fessed up to the blatant data fraud it had committed for well over a decade, sacked the personnel who had been responsible for the cover-up, withdrew the chickenpox vaccine from the market, compensated everyone who had been harmed by it, and promised not to let any more dodgy vaccines onto the market.
Just kidding. They retained the two-dose schedule in their childhood vaccination recommendations, approved a combination measles-mump-rubella-varicella vaccine which made it harder for parents to dodge the chickenpox vaccine if their child had either already had the disease, or they didn’t think it was necessary to vaccinate against it, added a two-dose schedule to the adult recommendations for everyone born after 1980, and retained the recommendation for a two-dose schedule of the shingles vaccine that had only become necessary as a result of introducing the chickenpox vaccine. Because Science™.

An Iron Curtain Descends on Mr AluminumGoldman’s gothic tale is far from unusual. Christopher Exley is one of the world’s leading authorities on aluminium and its effects on human health. In fact, due to his nearly four-decade-long quest to understand the impact of aluminium on biological systems, summarised in his book Imagine You Are An Aluminum Atom, Exley has become widely known as “Mr Aluminum” (surrendering to the US spelling of this ubiquitous element, despite his English provenance).
Unsurprisingly, the aluminium industry ran interference on the dissemination of Exley’s research findings, but up until 2016, Keele University, where Exley serves as a professor of bioinorganic chemistry, fully supported his research.
But when Exley and his research team began uncovering evidence that children who had died with a diagnosis of autism had exceptionally high levels of aluminium in the microglial cells of their brains, and linking this with the burgeoning use of paediatric vaccines that include an aluminium adjuvant, Keele’s relationship with Mr Aluminum began to turn sour.
Exley, by the way, did not start out believing that aluminium-containing vaccine adjuvants played a significant role in the development of autism. YouTube views discussion of the process by which Exley, reluctantly, changed his mind as a violation of their Community Guidelines (one wonders which “community” they had in mind when drafting these guidelines – Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China, perhaps?)…

… but fortunately the Wayback Machine has preserved Exley’s presentation on his findings, which you can watch here:

After a change in administration and funding sources, Keele University began to undermine Exley’s work, initially with subtle strategies including “spiking” press releases that Exley wrote to publicise his research findings, and downplaying or ignoring major scientific contributions by his research group.
The university’s sabotage program eventually escalated to disabling Exley’s website and preventing him from receiving philanthropic donations to finance his research. As a direct result of Keele cutting off his ability to receive funding from individuals and groups that wished to support his work, the Exley group ceased their research on 31 August 2021.

Before his vital research was unceremoniously terminated, Exley responded to a 2019 article in the BMJ titled ‘Information wars: tackling the threat from disinformation on vaccines’, which decried “the role played by disinformation spread through social media” in fomenting “vaccine hesitancy”, and urging public health authorities to “employ much more sophisticated messages” to “confront… disinformation”.
Exley’s response was razor-sharp:
“My group researches vaccine safety. We undertake research to understand the role of aluminium adjuvants in vaccination and how these adjuvants may be linked to serious adverse events following vaccination. Upon completing our research we submit it for peer review and if accepted it is published.
Is this what the authors of this editorial consider as ‘misinformation’?
The approach taken by the authors of this piece is exactly why vaccine hesitancy exists. Those of us researching the safety of vaccines know that they are not 100% safe for everyone, the vaccine industry knows this and they are required by law to put this information on the patient information leaflets provided with every vaccine. Only the Government and people like the authors of this article deny the potential dangers of vaccination. Their denial is what sparks vaccine hesitancy in the public as the public are very much aware of potential dangers.
Until individuals such as the authors of this article remove their heads from the sand and allow a full and transparent debate on vaccine safety the problem of vaccine hesitancy will only become even more widespread.
Politics should not ‘trump’ human health.”
Rapid Response: Re: Information wars: tackling the threat from disinformation on vaccines
But as Exley well knew after decades of repeated assaults on his research endeavours, first by the aluminium industry and then by the vaccine-industrial complex, politics has been trumping human health for a looooong time. We’ll delve into how and why this has been allowed to happen, in the final part of this series.

... and what it teaches us about public health

By : Robyn Chuter
https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/beating-measles-with-toilets-the?s=r


The attempt to eradicate measles globally has manifestly failed, and there is growing acknowledgement that it is vaccine failure rather than failure to vaccinate that is responsible for the resurgence of measles in highly-vaccinated populations, with measles outbreaks occurring in both developed and developing countries in populations with 99%+ measles vaccination coverage.
Furthermore, acquiring measles in childhood is associated with protection against many chronic conditions. For example:

• The Newcastle Thousand Families Study, a prospective cohort of 1142 individuals born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1947, found that a childhood history of measles was associated with a 61% lower risk of dying of cancer during ages 15-60 years.
• Getting measles in childhood was found to reduce the odds of developing chronic lymphocytic leukaemia by 43% in an Italian case-control study involving 1771 controls and 649 leukaemia cases from 11 Italian areas.
• Similarly, a history of childhood measles infection was found to be associated with a lower risk of both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (particularly follicular B-cell NHL).
• A UK population-based case-control study found that having had 2 or more childhood infectious diseases (including chicken pox, measles, mumps, pertussis and rubella) was associated with a 55% lower risk of Hodgkin lymphoma in young adults (16–24 years).
• Similarly, a population-based case-control study of San Francisco Bay area women found that having had measles before the age of 10 was associated with a reduced risk of Epstein-Barr virus-positive Hodgkin lymphoma.
• Allergic diseases including dust mite allergy and asthma are less common in children who have had measles; children in Guinea-Bissau who had had measles were found to have roughly half (12.8% vs 25.6%) the risk of atopy – the tendency to produce an exaggerated immunoglobulin E (IgE) immune response to otherwise harmless substances in the environment – as children who had been vaccinated and not had measles.
• The acute stage of measles infection appears to suppress the activity of the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, such that only 25% of children with measles had malaria parasites in their blood vs 88% of children without measles.
• Intractable epileptic seizures have been observed to disappear following acute viral infections including measles.
• A case-control analysis of Parkinson’s disease and infections in childhood conducted in a cohort of 50 002 men who attended either Harvard College or the University of Pennsylvania between 1916 and 1950 found that a history of measles prior to college entrance was associated with a 47% lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

How do we thread the needle between the very real risks of serious illness, lifelong complications and death in undernourished, immunocompromised children who contract measles, and the apparent protection against multiple serious diseases of adulthood conferred by measles infection in otherwise healthy, well-nourished children?
Should we spend $US 2.3 billion per year on vaccines in a vainglorious attempt to eradicate measles from every corner of the globe? Or would that money be better spent on providing the fundamentals of public health – like toilets – to the millions of people in developing countries who lack them?

To reduce hunger and the nutrient deficiencies that increase the risk of serious outcomes of infection with measles and other childhood diseases, how about promoting traditional farming methods that increase the nutrient density of crops instead of persuading governments of impoverished nations to pour money they don’t have into Bill Gates’ vanity projects like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which has resulted in 30% higher rates of undernourishment in the countries which adopted his high-tech, chemical-dependent, patented seeds – which, by sheer coincidence, are produced by companies that he owns major stakes in?
And given that, after measles vaccination began in the US, the death rate from measles was found to be almost ten times higher in counties with the lowest median household income than in the wealthiest counties, why have public health authorities focused so obsessively on jabbing every last child with multiple doses of vaccines, rather than pushing for policies that close the poverty gap – and in so doing, reduce the risk of all infectious diseases as well as many chronic ones?

As I wrote in my miniseries on philanthrocapitalism and public health (Part 1 and Part 2), the public health movement has been hijacked by the profit motive – and it’s not just people in developing countries who are suffering from it.
We are at a most interesting point in history, where the abject failure of pharmaceutical solutions to COVID-19 (injections that don’t stop infection or transmission, and antiviral drugs that don’t prevent hospitalisation or death) is becoming more evident every day, while our governments continue to throw taxpayers’ money at these white elephants.
Perhaps we may take the publication in a major medical journal of a study on the infectious disease-reducing power of the humble toilet as a sign that it’s time we forced our public health authorities to euthanise the Frankenstein monster version of Big Pharma/Public Health Inc that they’ve been pushing on us, and take public health back to its roots.
And if you want to personally contribute to an initiative to provide toilets and improve sanitation in developing countries, order your toilet paper from the good folks at Who Gives A Crap, who donate 50% of their profits to doing just that. Sure beats the crap out of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The attempt to eradicate measles globally has manifestly failed, and there is growing acknowledgement that it is vaccine failure rather than failure to vaccinate that is responsible for the resurgence of measles in highly-vaccinated populations, with measles outbreaks occurring in both developed and developing countries in populations with 99%+ measles vaccination coverage.

Furthermore, acquiring measles in childhood is associated with protection against many chronic conditions. For example:

• The Newcastle Thousand Families Study, a prospective cohort of 1142 individuals born in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1947, found that a childhood history of measles was associated with a 61% lower risk of dying of cancer during ages 15-60 years.
• Getting measles in childhood was found to reduce the odds of developing chronic lymphocytic leukaemia by 43% in an Italian case-control study involving 1771 controls and 649 leukaemia cases from 11 Italian areas.
• Similarly, a history of childhood measles infection was found to be associated with a lower risk of both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (particularly follicular B-cell NHL).
• A UK population-based case-control study found that having had 2 or more childhood infectious diseases (including chicken pox, measles, mumps, pertussis and rubella) was associated with a 55% lower risk of Hodgkin lymphoma in young adults (16–24 years).
• Similarly, a population-based case-control study of San Francisco Bay area women found that having had measles before the age of 10 was associated with a reduced risk of Epstein-Barr virus-positive Hodgkin lymphoma.
• Allergic diseases including dust mite allergy and asthma are less common in children who have had measles; children in Guinea-Bissau who had had measles were found to have roughly half (12.8% vs 25.6%) the risk of atopy – the tendency to produce an exaggerated immunoglobulin E (IgE) immune response to otherwise harmless substances in the environment – as children who had been vaccinated and not had measles.
• The acute stage of measles infection appears to suppress the activity of the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, such that only 25% of children with measles had malaria parasites in their blood vs 88% of children without measles.
• Intractable epileptic seizures have been observed to disappear following acute viral infections including measles.
• A case-control analysis of Parkinson’s disease and infections in childhood conducted in a cohort of 50 002 men who attended either Harvard College or the University of Pennsylvania between 1916 and 1950 found that a history of measles prior to college entrance was associated with a 47% lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

How do we thread the needle between the very real risks of serious illness, lifelong complications and death in undernourished, immunocompromised children who contract measles, and the apparent protection against multiple serious diseases of adulthood conferred by measles infection in otherwise healthy, well-nourished children?
Should we spend $US 2.3 billion per year on vaccines in a vainglorious attempt to eradicate measles from every corner of the globe? Or would that money be better spent on providing the fundamentals of public health – like toilets – to the millions of people in developing countries who lack them?

To reduce hunger and the nutrient deficiencies that increase the risk of serious outcomes of infection with measles and other childhood diseases, how about promoting traditional farming methods that increase the nutrient density of crops instead of persuading governments of impoverished nations to pour money they don’t have into Bill Gates’ vanity projects like the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which has resulted in 30% higher rates of undernourishment in the countries which adopted his high-tech, chemical-dependent, patented seeds – which, by sheer coincidence, are produced by companies that he owns major stakes in?
And given that, after measles vaccination began in the US, the death rate from measles was found to be almost ten times higher in counties with the lowest median household income than in the wealthiest counties, why have public health authorities focused so obsessively on jabbing every last child with multiple doses of vaccines, rather than pushing for policies that close the poverty gap – and in so doing, reduce the risk of all infectious diseases as well as many chronic ones?

As I wrote in my miniseries on philanthrocapitalism and public health (Part 1 and Part 2), the public health movement has been hijacked by the profit motive – and it’s not just people in developing countries who are suffering from it.
We are at a most interesting point in history, where the abject failure of pharmaceutical solutions to COVID-19 (injections that don’t stop infection or transmission, and antiviral drugs that don’t prevent hospitalisation or death) is becoming more evident every day, while our governments continue to throw taxpayers’ money at these white elephants.
Perhaps we may take the publication in a major medical journal of a study on the infectious disease-reducing power of the humble toilet as a sign that it’s time we forced our public health authorities to euthanise the Frankenstein monster version of Big Pharma/Public Health Inc that they’ve been pushing on us, and take public health back to its roots.
And if you want to personally contribute to an initiative to provide toilets and improve sanitation in developing countries, order your toilet paper from the good folks at Who Gives A Crap, who donate 50% of their profits to doing just that. Sure beats the crap out of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

​
A paper published in BMJ Open in April 2022 has found that an increase in the number of households that have toilets is associated with a decreased number of cases of measles in Indian children.
The first question that might pop into your head upon reading this is probably “What do toilets have to do with measles?”
I’m glad you asked.
​
As every student of public health learns, by far the largest percentage of the precipitous declines in death rates from infectious diseases that occurred in the twentieth century, was accrued long before there were any effective medical interventions. Tuberculosis, whooping cough, scarlet fever, typhoid, diphtheria and measles had all but disappeared as causes of death in Westernised countries, long before antibiotics, toxoids and vaccines were developed to treat or prevent them.
​

Just as Drs Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff feared, the fanaticism of the COVID injection-pushers has fuelled vaccine hesitancy, scepticism, resistance and outright rejection.
Really, that shouldn’t surprise anyone with two functioning brain cells left. If you have to use free donuts, beer, marijuana joints, million dollar lottery tickets, college scholarships and sessions with a prostitute (bring your son – boys as young as 14 permitted, as long as they are accompanied by an adult!), or fines, prison sentences, travel bans and dismissal from their jobs to persuade people to take your product, it’s probably not a great product.

But here’s the real surprise: It’s not just members of the public who are wondering whether vaccines are truly as safe, effective and important as we’ve been told. Many doctors have their doubts too.
A study published on 20 April 2022 in the journal Vaccine has confirmed the worst fears expressed by anthropologist Heidi Larsen in a speech delivered to the World Health Organisation’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit on 3 December 2019 – just weeks before the first case of COVID-19 was identified in Wuhan, China.

Larsen is the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project, which is backed by pharmaceutical companies, the secretive globalist think-tank Chatham House, and a gaggle of not-for-profits and NGOs with deep ties to Big Pharma. She warned the audience of “vaccine safety stakeholders” that her organisation’s research was identifying worrying signs of declining confidence in vaccines among health care professionals (beginning at 1:16:20 in the final video block):
“The other thing that’s a trend and an issue is not just confidence in providers, but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day… the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider, and if we lose that, we’re in trouble. And we haven’t lost it yet, but… when the front line professionals are starting to question, or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to… the person asking them the questions… I mean in medical school you’re lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this.”

Heidi Larsen – ‘Vaccine Safety in the Next Decade: Why we need new modes of trust building?’
More than two years on, it doesn’t look like that front line is any less wobbly.
According to the newly-published study in Vaccine, titled ‘Imperfect messengers? An analysis of vaccine confidence among primary care physicians’, roughly one tenth of primary care physicians in the US do not believe that vaccines – that is, vaccines in general, not just COVID-19 vaccines/injections – are safe, effective or important.
Specifically, out of a demographically-representative sample of 625 US physicians working in family medicine, internal medicine, or general practice, who were surveyed in mid-May 2021,
​

• 10.1% of primary care physicians (PCPs) do not agree vaccines are safe;
• 9.3% of PCPs do not agree that vaccines are effective; and
• 8.3% of PCPs do not agree that vaccines are important.

As startling as these data points may be to people who have only ever encountered rabidly pro-vaccination doctors, it’s even more fascinating to compare the opinions of doctors to those of the general public. The authors of the new study did just that, juxtaposing the results from a nationwide phone poll conducted in 2018 that asked identical questions of 983 Americans, with the results from their survey of doctors. Take a look:

By - Robyn Chuter

I have had more requests to write an article about the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine1 than about any other topic during the entire manufactured crisis of the past two years. I’ve been holding back until I felt I had enough information to make it worth your while to read. I’ll be adding to this article as more data come in, so check back in on it from time to time.

As one of my correspondents put it, the Novavax vaccine is “being subtly pushed by doctors to get the people who for various reasons did not want the usual culprit vaccines [i.e. the mRNA and viral vector injections, which many resisted due to concerns about novel technologies and adverse reactions] but who may be persuaded that this one is different”.
It’s a strange state of affairs when a product’s marketing angle is “Not nearly as dangerous as its competitors!”… but here we are.

So just what is the Novavax shot, what technology is used to produce it, who is making it, what’s in it, is it safe, and is it effective at reducing the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the development of COVID-19?
What is the Novavax injection?The Novavax vaccine, officially designated “SARS-CoV-2 rS (NVX-CoV-2373)”, is branded in Australia as Nuvaxovid, for reasons presumably best known to its sponsors who no doubt spent a small fortune on focus groups to pick a catchy name for their product.
Unlike traditional vaccines against viral diseases, which are produced by growing viruses in chicken eggs, then harvesting the virus from the eggs and either attenuating (weakening) or inactivating (killing) it, Nuvaxovid uses recombinant DNA technology.

Recombinant technology is a relative newcomer to the vaccine manufacturing space; the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first recombinant influenza vaccine in 2013.
Recombinant vaccines are created synthetically, by inserting a gene that codes for a viral protein that triggers the human immune system – known as an antigen – into a baculovirus (a virus that infects invertebrates) to produce a “recombinant” baculovirus. Host cells are then deliberately infected with the recombinant baculovirus, forcing them to make many copies of the viral antigen. The antigen is then collected, purified, and combined with chemicals that ramp up the immune system’s response to antigens – known as adjuvants – to produce a vaccine.
In the case of the Novavax shot, the viral antigen is a modified version of the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2, the host cells are derived from the immature ovaries of the pupae of fall armyworm moths (Spodoptera frugiperda), and the adjuvant is Matrix-M, which is a combination of two saponins (soap-like substances) derived from the sap of the soapbark tree (Quillaja saponaria) encased in cholesterol nanoparticles to reduce their toxicity to human cells. The spike proteins harvested from the moth cells are assembled onto synthetic lipid nanoparticles, each displaying up to 14 spike proteins.

Who makes the Novavax vaccine?Novavax, a company based in the US state of Maryland, describes itself as “a biotechnology company that promotes improved health globally through the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative vaccines to prevent serious infectious diseases.”
Novavax claims that they have “more than a decade of experience contending with some of the world’s most devastating diseases, including COVID-19, seasonal influenza, RSV, Ebola, MERS, and SARS”. Yet, just like mRNA injection producer Moderna, Novavax had never brought any of its candidate vaccines to market until the unprecedented global response to COVID-19 crisis helped to “blow the system up”, smashing barriers to the acceptance of novel vaccine technologies in just the way that New Yorker staff writer, Michael Specter, salivated over in the October 2019 Milken Institute gabfest on developing a universal flu vaccine (start watching around 8:10 for Specter’s spiel):
How does a for-profit organisation persist since 1987, continuing to pay staff and pull in funding for its research and development, without managing to produce a single marketable product? I guess it pays to have friends in the right places.

And Novavax certainly appears to have the right kind of friends, managing to attract funding from the Bill Gates-founded Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to the tune of up to US$388 million for its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, along with a cool US$1.6 billion from the US government-sponsored Operation Warp Speed program to fast-track the development of vaccines for COVID-19. The US Department of Defense awarded Novavax a $70 million contract for producing their vaccine in June 2020, despite the Phase 1 (preliminary immunogenicity and safety) trial having only begun in May 2020, with results not reported until July 2020 – a month after the contract was inked.
What’s in the Novavax vaccine?In addition to the bioengineered spike protein, the TGA Product Information document lists the following excipients:

• Dibasic sodium phosphate heptahydrate
• Monobasic sodium phosphate monohydrate
• Sodium chloride
• Polysorbate 80
• Sodium hydroxide (for adjustment of pH)
• Hydrochloric acid (for adjustment of pH)
• Water for Injections
• Adjuvant (Matrix M)
  • Quillaja saponaria saponins fraction A
  • Quillaja saponaria saponins fraction C
  • Cholesterol
  • Phosphatidyl choline
  • Monobasic potassium phosphate
  • Potassium chloride

While most of these ingredients are quite innocuous, polysorbate 80 is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer when consumed as a food additive, and is linked to hypersensitivity systemic reactions (such as anaphylaxis), kidney and liver toxicity and increased susceptibility of cells to oxidative stress when used in drugs that enter the bloodstream. Polysorbate 80 also facilitates the transport of drugs across the blood brain barrier, the structure which hinders the entry of most substances into the delicate neural tissue that comprises the brain. The implications of this for a drug that contains a spike protein which is known to cause inflammation within the brain and suspected to be responsible for the fatigue and neuropsychiatric symptoms that characterise both acute and long COVID, are deeply concerning. Does the presence of polysorbate 80 in the Novavax shot increase uptake of spike protein into the brain? And if so, how does this affect the risk of stroke, vascular dementia, and cognitive dysfunction?
These are the types of questions that one would expect to be answered in preclinical studies, that is, studies performed on laboratory animals (sorry, vegans, but if you’re going to take pharmaceutical products, you have to know that vast numbers of rodents, primates and other non-human animals are tortured and sacrificed by this industry every year). So…
What did the studies on Nuvaxovid show?The preclinical Australian Product Information document for Nuvaxovid states only that genotoxicity tests (i.e. studies to detect damage to chromosomes) were carried out only the Matrix-M adjuvant, not on the whole product, and that

“Carcinogenicity studies were not performed. The components of the vaccine are not expected to
have carcinogenic potential.”

“Not expected to have carcinogenic potential”? What about the demonstrated colon cancer-accelerating effect of polysorbate 80? Sure, carcinogenesis has only been demonstrated so far with oral dosing of polysorbate 80, but the mechanism of action is promotion of inflammation, which is known to increase the risk of all manner of cancers. And since the spike protein itself triggers inflammation, there may be a synergistic effect on cancer promotion when polysorbate 80 is delivered in combination with spike protein.
Clinical trials – Phase 1 & 2Moving onto studies in humans (clinical trials), a combined Phase 1/2 trial to evaluate safety and immunogenicity in 131 healthy Australian adults concluded that the product – which was tested in a number of different formulations – induced higher antibody levels than infection with SARS-CoV-2, as well as a robust T cell response, and had an acceptable safety profile, with no serious adverse events. Notably, however, only those who received the vaccine reported adverse reactions ranked as “severe” (i.e. none occurred in the placebo group) and severe reactions were more common after the second shot than after the first:
​
A larger Phase 2 trial enrolling 1288 participants from the US and Australia once again found a stronger neutralising antibody response after vaccination than in convalescent sera – that is, the antibodies from vaccinated individuals were better at killing SARS-CoV-2 than antibodies from people who had recovered from infection, but notably, both were tested against the original Wuhan version of the virus (“wild type”) which was no longer in circulation at the time the study took place, having long since been replaced by a series of variants.
Once again, moderate to severe adverse reactions were more frequent after the second shot than the first. They also occurred more frequently in the higher-dose version of the vaccine. One vaccine recipient developed myocarditis three days after the second dose, and was hospitalised.

Clinical trials – Phase 3
1. The UK studyThe first Phase 3 trial to be published, in June 2021, randomised over 15 000 UK adults to receive either two doses of the lower dose version of the Novavax vaccine, or saline placebo injection, three weeks apart. The triumphant conclusion of the study was that the two-dose regimen “conferred 89.7% protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 [Alpha] variant”. But what does this actually mean?
The primary end point of the trial was the “first occurrence of virologically confirmed symptomatic mild, moderate, or severe Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants who were seronegative at baseline, as determined by the results of testing for anti–nucleocapsid antibody. Symptomatic Covid-19 was defined according to the criteria of the FDA.”
In other words, anyone who reported even the mildest of generic respiratory viral symptoms such as cough, headache or fever and who returned a positive PCR test was declared to “have COVID-19”, even though PCR is not suitable for diagnosing infection. The cycle threshold used for PCR testing was not specified.
Furthermore, there is a 40-100% increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for two weeks after the first Pfizer COVID-19 injection, but since the efficacy calculations in the UK trial excluded all “cases” of COVID-19 that occurred in the 4-week period between the first shot and 1 week after the second shot, it is not known whether the same negative efficacy occurs with the Novavax vaccine.
What is known is that out of the two deaths related to COVID-19 that were reported during the trial (one in the vaccine group and one in the placebo group), “the death in the vaccine group occurred in a 53-year-old man in whom Covid-19 symptoms developed 7 days after the first dose; he was subsequently admitted to the ICU for treatment of respiratory failure from Covid-19 pneumonia and died 15 days after vaccine administration.”
Just in case you missed it, the Novavax vaccine did not reduce the risk of dying of COVID-19. Furthermore, while the authors made much of the fact that the five reported cases of “severe COVID” all occurred in the placebo group, only one of these five required hospital treatment. Three of these “severe” cases attended the emergency department but were not admitted, while the fifth was treated at home.
And oddly, the Novavax shot showed no statistically significant benefit in non-white participants:
So, this much-touted trial demonstrated that Nuvaxovid

• Did not prevent death from COVID-19 (1 death each in the placebo and vaccine group)
• Did not prevent hospitalisation (1 hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the placebo group, one for immune-mediated myocarditis in the vaccine group)
• Reduced the absolute risk of developing any symptom of COVID-19 in the first three months after shot #2 + one week by 1.23% (from 1.37% in the placebo group to 0.14% in the vaccine group).

The trial did not assess whether the vaccine blocked transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

2. The US/Mexico studyJust under 30 000 US and Mexican adults aged over 18 were recruited for this trial, which took place in the first half of 2021, when the Alpha variant was still dominant in North America. Vaccine efficacy was calculated at 90.4%, using the same criteria as in the UK trial: any symptom of COVID-19, along with a positive PCR test, occurring at least 7 days after the second dose.
In all, 14 such “cases” of COVID-19 occurred within the roughly 2 month follow-up time in the 17 312 people who received two doses of the Novavax vaccine per protocol, vs 63 “cases” in the 8140 placebo recipients.
10 moderate and 4 severe cases of COVID-19 were reported in the placebo group (although none appear to have required hospitalisation), and none in the vaccine group. No deaths from COVID-19 occurred in either group.
Efficacy in Latinos was lower than in either non-Latino white, or black people:
Once again, adverse events were reported by more people who received the vaccine than the placebo, and were more frequent after the second vaccine dose. Severe local reactions after dose #2 occurred in less than 1% of placebo recipients vs 6.7% of vaccine recipients. Severe systemic reactions occurred in 2.1% of placebo recipients after dose #2 vs 12.1% of vaccine recipients.
In summary, the US/Mexico trial found that Nuvaxovid:

• Did not prevent death or hospitalisation from COVID-19.
• Reduced the absolute risk of developing any symptom of COVID-19 in the first two months after shot #2 + one week by 0.69% (from 0.77% in the placebo group to 0.08% in the vaccine group).
• Resulted in significantly increased risk of severe local and systemic reactions compared to placebo, particularly after the second dose.

As with the UK trial, this study did not assess whether the vaccine presents transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

3. The South Africa studyIn this study, 4387 South African adults (94% HIV-negative and 6% HIV-positive) received two doses of either Nuvaxovid or placebo, during a period in which the Beta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Using the same criteria as for the UK and US trials, vaccine efficacy was found to be just 49.4% overall, and 60.1% in HIV-negative participants. In roughly 60 days of follow-up, symptomatic COVID-19 was observed in 15 participants out of the 1357 in the vaccine group who completed the study per protocol, and in 29 participants out of the 1327 in the placebo group.
No COVID-related deaths or hospitalisations occurred in either the vaccine or placebo group, and only one of the 29 “cases” of COVID-19 that occurred in the placebo group was rated as severe.
Medically attended adverse events and serious adverse events occurred more often in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (13 vs. 6 medically attended adverse events and 2 vs. 1 serious adverse events).
In summary, the South African trial found that Nuvaxovid:

• Did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19.
• Reduced the absolute risk of developing any symptom of COVID-19 in the first two months after shot #2 + one week by 1.08% (from 2.19% in the placebo group to 1.11% in the vaccine group).
• Doubled the risk of experiencing a medically attended adverse event or serious event.

And, as with the UK and US/Mexico trials, the South African study did not assess whether the vaccine presents transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
The TGA granted provisional approval to Nuvaxovid on these data????You’ll forgive me for being just a little underwhelmed by the efficacy data on the Novavax shot. The three flagship trials on which TGA granted provisional approval for Nuvaxovid show no mortality benefit and no reduction in hospitalisation risk. They also don’t demonstrate any community benefit, because prevention of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t an endpoint.
The trade-off for the 0.69-1.23% reduction in your risk of developing any respiratory tract symptom with a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is a significantly elevated risk of severe local and systemic adverse reactions.
In addition to the two myocarditis cases identified in the Phase 1/2 trial and the UK trial, the European Medicine Agency’s assessment of Nuvaxovid identified a third case, which occurred in a participant in the placebo group who was given the vaccine after the follow-up period was completed.
Hypertension (high blood pressure) was also identified as an adverse reaction to Nuvaxovid; a pooled safety analysis found 4 serious adverse events of hypertension as well as 13 severe cases of hypertension. They also noted more serious adverse events of prostate cancer (5 in the vaccine group vs 0 in the placebo group) and stroke (7 vs 1).
ATAGI’s advice contradicts the TGAThe conflict of interest-ridden Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) issued a statement on the use of Novavax COVID-19 vaccine (Nuvaxovid) which contradicts the product information document issued by TGA.
For example, TGA takes a cautious approach to use in pregnancy and breastfeeding:
ATAGI, on the other hand, throws caution to the wind:
TGA acknowledges that there is scant data on efficacy and safety in immunocompromised people, and none on “mixing and matching” Nuvaxovid with other COVID-19 vaccines:
ATAGI makes no such acknowledgement of the lack of data and has no qualms whatsoever about tacking a dose of Nuvaxovid onto a primary course of a different type of COVID-19 vaccine:
What are we to make of this conflicting guidance – and why is ATAGI permitted to issue recommendations that contradict the TGA, without providing any of the evidence that TGA says is missing, in support of its position?
Adverse event reports call for cautionNuvaxovid was only granted provisional approval in Australia in late January 2022, but adverse event reports are already piling up.
AuxVaxSafety, which solicits adverse event reports from a subset of vaccine recipients on the third day after vacination, reports that 2 in 100 Australians who received Nuvaxovid have sought their doctor’s advice or presented to an emergency department in the days after their first dose, and 15% were unable to attend work or school or perform normal duties.
As of 18 March 2022, 233 adverse reactions to Nuvaxovid had been reported to TGA’s Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN), including 61 cases of chest pain, 29 cases of chest discomfort, 8 of pericarditis and 6 of hypertension, along with 60 cases of headache, and 56 cases of paraesthesia (a sensation of pricking, tingling, or creeping on the skin having no objective cause and usually associated with injury or irritation of a sensory nerve or nerve root).
There are some rather graphic descriptions of three of these adverse reactions, drawn from social media posts made by the people who suffered them, here.
Even if adverse reactions to the Novavax vaccine are rarer than to the AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna shots, any risk at all is, in my opinion, a completely unacceptable price to pay for a product that offers no clinically meaningful benefit to individuals nor any social benefit.
So, don’t bother inviting me to join your Novastan cult. I’m staying in the control group.
For information on my private practice, please visit Empower Total Health. I am a Certified Lifestyle Medicine Practitioner, with an ND, GDCouns, BHSc(Hons) and Fellowship of the Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine.
1
Unlike the mRNA and viral vector injections, Novavax’s product does fulfil the technical definition of a vaccine as a preparation containing either a live, dead or attenuated pathogen or toxin.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

By : Robyn Chuter

 If you’ve tried to question your doctor about any aspect of the COVID-19 biosecurity theatre to which we’ve all been subjected for the past two years, chances are that he or she repeated the officially-accepted catechism (masks work, “social distancing” stops the spread, COVID-19 “vaccines” are safe and effective for everyone) and then changed the subject as quickly as possible.
And woe betide you if you asked for a medical exemption from COVID-19 injections. I have had dozens of clients recount to me their experiences, but the following five were particularly surreal:

• A young woman who had a serious bout of pericarditis two years prior and was concerned about the risk of getting it again from an mRNA COVID-19 injection, was told that if that happened, she would just receive the same treatment as before, so what was she worried about?
• An elderly man collapsed and fell unconscious 4 hours after his first AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection. He was rushed to hospital and eventually regained consciousness. Multiple evaluations failed to identify an explanation for this episode, and his GP refused to write an exemption for the second shot.
• An elderly woman developed sudden-onset deafness after her second AstraZeneca shot. Her GP told her that she was just anxious, and later pushed the booster shot on her.
• A middle-aged woman with a history of chronic immune-related illness went to her GP, who was usually open to discussing any topic my client raised, to request an exemption. Instead of answering directly, the GP simply showed her an email from the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA), which warned that any practitioner who diverged from government policy on COVID-19 would run the risk of investigation, sanction and even loss of licence. The specialist who diagnosed her condition acknowledged her concern that many people with her diagnosis had reported significant deterioration after taking a COVID-19 injection, but then told her he couldn’t help with obtaining an exemption as he had already been investigated by AHPRA and didn’t want to draw more fire from them.
• A late middle-aged man with a history of coronary artery disease and heart attacks took a pile of medical studies demonstrating how the spike proteins induced by COVID-19 injections are taken up by endothelial cells, triggering blood clot formation, to his cardiologist. The cardiologist didn’t dispute the evidence, but informed my client that the official position was that people with cardiac risk factors should get the shot, and he wasn’t willing to risk his medical licence to write an exemption.

The last two cases were in many ways the most illuminating, in that the doctors admitted – either obliquely or quite candidly – that they were in fear of punishment by AHPRA if they wrote exemptions, regardless of whether they considered them medically justified.
In other words, they were willing to subject their patients to medical treatment that could be harmful to them and had not been tested in people with their health conditions, in order to avoid the AHPRA Eye of Sauron falling upon them.
In case you haven’t twigged yet, your doctor is not “your” doctor. He or she no longer serves your interests, but those of the state.
We’ve all been bombarded with “public health” messaging over the last two years, but few people – including doctors – have ever stopped to think about what public health is, and how it relates to the practise of medicine.
As I discussed in my two part series, ‘COVID-19 and philanthrocapitalism’s War on Public Health’ (Part 1; Part 2), public health is a very distinct field from the practise of medicine, or for that matter complementary and alternative health care.1
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which describes itself as “the nation’s leading public health agency”, explains (emphasis mine),
“Public health is concerned with protecting the health of entire populations. These populations can be as small as a local neighborhood, or as big as an entire country or region of the world… Public health professionals try to prevent problems from happening or recurring through implementing educational programs, recommending policies, administering services and conducting research--in contrast to clinical professionals like doctors and nurses, who focus primarily on treating individuals after they become sick or injured.”
What is Public Health?
Got that? Public health professionals focus on the collective, while doctors, nurses, naturopaths, chiropractors, clinical psychologists, acupuncturists and speech therapists focus on the individual sitting in front of them.
And there’s the rub. Individuals exist in reality. They have names, faces, bodies, partners, children, jobs – and personal and family health histories. As a practitioner, I can take a case history from an individual, and tailor my treatment plan to his or her specific situation, taking into account both medical and personal factors that are unique to that individual.

Clinical practice is not, and should not be, “one size fits all” because it is applied to individuals, but public health policies are by definition “one size fits all” because they are applied to (arbitrarily defined) collectives.
But collectives do not exist in reality. They are abstract notions that we assign nouns to for the sake of convenience – like “neighbourhood” or “community” or “nation” – but when we try to pin down their definitions, we quickly realise how slippery they are.
What exactly is my “neighbourhood” or my “community”? Does it comprise all the people who live within a certain radius of me, or within a certain travelling time, or just the people whom I see, or interact with? Who sets these criteria – do I define what my community is, or does someone else (for example, a public health professional) do it on my behalf?
And when the CDC waxes lyrical about “protecting the health of entire populations”, what does “protecting” mean in actual practice, and do the people who comprise these “entire populations” get a say in how, and by whom, and against what, they are to be “protected”?
Furthermore, how do we define what “health” means for a “community”, let alone formulate policies to improve it? Perhaps even more importantly, who defines what health means to any given (but functionally non-existent) “community”? Do the people who supposedly comprise this community get a say, or does some external committee of “experts” decide for them and then impose a set of “public health measures” on them?
As I wrote in COVID-19 and philanthrocapitalism’s War on Public Health: Part 2 – Technological solutions to public health problems, attendees of the 1986 First International Conference on Health Promotion in Ottawa pledged to
“accept the community as the essential voice in matters of its health, living conditions and well-being… and to share power with other sectors, other disciplines and, most importantly, with people themselves.”
Commitment to Health Promotion
Setting aside the definitional problems with “community” and exactly how it is that this nebulous non-entity is supposed to have a “voice”, let alone the issue of who or what is supposed to be listening to that voice and who appointed them to listen in the first place, at least this pledge placed the locus of control with the people who were the subjects of all this public health activity.
However, the version of “public health” that we’ve all been subjected to for the past two years is not remotely interested in hearing our voices or sharing power with us. Instead it is a blunt instrument of state control – a throwback to the pre-1830s paradigm of public health in which “ruling elites” promulgated “religious and cultural rules” intended to prevent diseases “by enforced regulation of human behavior”.


Hopefully by now you can see the problem: doctors and other health professionals have been co-opted into becoming functionaries of this elite-generated public health apparatus, despite the mismatch between the aims of clinical practitioners and the aims of public health professionals.
Vaccination campaigns provide the perfect illustration of this mismatch. Public health professionals advocate for universal or near-universal vaccination because they claim it helps to achieve herd immunity (a questionable assumption, but that’s a topic for another day). They acknowledge that a small percentage of people will have adverse reactions to vaccines, and some of them will die, but the maiming and untimely passing of a few healthy people is considered an acceptable price to pay for achieving “the greater good”.
But a doctor or other health practitioner’s duty of care is for the patient in their consulting room. If the practitioner judges that a particular patient has a higher chance of being harmed by a particular vaccine than of being benefited by it, then it is incumbent on the practitioner to prioritise the health of the individual patient – who actually exists, and is sitting in front of them, over that of the collective – which is merely a theoretical construct to whom they cannot possibly owe a duty of care.
In 2006, the Australian Medical Association adopted the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva “as a contemporary companion to the 2,500-year-old Hippocratic Oath for doctors to declare their commitment to their profession, their patients, and humanity”.
Then-AMA president Dr Mukesh Haikerwal acknowledged that there were “great challenges to the integrity and independence of the medical profession” and heralded the Declaration as a reaffirmation of the traditional role of doctors as independent professionals dedicated to the service of their patients, not servants of the state:
“The Declaration is a short, sharp summary of all that is good about being a doctor in the 21st Century… It reinforces the independence of the medical profession and it spells out clearly our duty and dedication to our patients and our respect for all human life.”
AMA Adopts WMA Declaration of Geneva
The Declaration of Geneva has undergone several revisions over its history; here is the latest (2017) version, re-endorsed by then-national president of the AMA, Dr Michael Gannon:
The Physician’s Pledge
AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:
I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;
I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;
I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;
I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;
I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;
I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.
Thank you for reading Empowered!. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Compare these solemn undertakings with the way the vast majority of doctors are now behaving:

• THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration… except when AHPRA threatens my medical licence, in which case I’ll refuse to protect my patients by writing legitimate exemptions, because I could get myself investigated for doing so.
• I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient… except if they’re an “antivaxxer”, in which case I’ll bully them, discriminate against them or threaten to bar them from my practice.
• I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life… except if the state’s agencies tell me that there are no cheap, safe, effective treatments for the early treatment of COVID-19, in which case I’ll ignore evidence like this, this and this, and just let people sicken and die unnecessarily.
• I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient… except if that creed is something I can spin into “being an antivaxxer” in which case my duty is waived.
• I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice… except if there’s a conflict between my conscience/dignity/good medical practice and my ability to make a living, in which case I’ll fold and do whatever AHPRA tells me to do.
• I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due… except if they’re offering non-government-approved early treatment or can be accused of being “antivaxxers”, in which case I’ll dob them into AHPRA so they get investigated – serves them right!
• I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare… except if AHPRA threatens me with deregistration for sharing my medical knowledge in ways they disagree with, like calling BS on unscientific public health advice, in which case I’ll shut up.
• I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat… except if the government tells me to, in which case I’ll go along with it.

And in case there were any doctors left who harboured a shadow of a doubt about whether they should speak the truth or fall in line with the Ministry of Truth, the Medical Indemnity Protection Society, which provides professional indemnity insurance for doctors, dentists and healthcare students, makes it abundantly clear. In an article titled ‘12 Commandments to avoid AHPRA notifications’, MIPS advises its members (my emphasis):
“Be very careful when using social media (even on your personal pages), when authoring papers or when appearing in interviews. Health practitioners are obliged to ensure their views are consistent with public health messaging. This is particularly relevant in current times. Views expressed which may be consistent with evidence-based material may not necessarily be consistent with public health messaging.”
Let that sink in for a moment. MIPS is basically telling its members, “Evidence be damned – if the state says that black is white and down is up, just nod your head and go along with it. And if you write an article that contradicts the state’s assertions, you’re on your own as far as we’re concerned, regardless of how solid your argument is.”
The line between public health and the practise of medicine – a line that has become increasingly blurry over the past decades, as Dr Mukesh Haikerwal tacitly acknowledged when endorsing the Declaration of Geneva as a reaffirmation of the role of doctors as independent professionals who owed a duty of care to their patients – has now been completely erased, and the manufactured COVID-19 crisis was the implement used to erase it.
Now, when you go to see the person whom you think of as “your doctor”, there’s an extra party in the consultation room: the state, which has inserted itself into the doctor-patient relationship without your consent.
In fact, it’s fair to say that the forced incorporation of health practitioners into the apparatus of public health has for all intents and purposes destroyed the doctor-patient relationship.
We’ve seen this merger of state and medical profession before, and it did not end well. Medical historians have noted that
“During the Weimar Republic in the mid-twentieth century, more than half of all German physicians became early joiners of the Nazi Party, surpassing the party enrollments of all other professions. From early on, the German Medical Society played the most instrumental role in the Nazi medical program, beginning with the marginalization of Jewish physicians, proceeding to coerced ‘experimentation,’ ‘euthanization,’ and sterilization, and culminating in genocide via the medicalization of mass murder of Jews and others caricatured and demonized by Nazi ideology.”
Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?
The psychiatric profession willingly cooperated with Soviet dictators from Stalin on, by diagnosing political dissidents with bogus psychotic disorders, confining them involuntarily in mental hospitals and subjecting them to “treatments” that were clearly not in the so-called patients’ interest:
“Dissidents were treated with massive doses of psychoactive drugs, which produced agonising side effects.”
Soviet Union admits to abuses of psychiatry
Health practitioners have a critical choice to make. You cannot serve both your patient/client and the state, because their interests are widely divergent.
And members of the public also face a choice: Will you continue to entrust your health care to someone whose allegiance is to the state, rather than you? If you do, don’t be surprised when “your” doctor throws your interests under the bus. As Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters”.
To end on a more positive note, if you’re an Australian healthcare practitioner or student who wants to restore medical ethics and patient-centred healthcare, or a member of the public who believes in medical freedom for yourself as well as your healthcare providers, I encourage you to join Queensland Health Practitioners Alliance.
QHPA (which will be opening branches in other States very soon) is an inclusive organisation of medical, complementary and allied health professionals, along with interested members of the public, working to create a truly integrative health and wellness model to present a viable alternative to our broken sick care system – one that prioritises the interests of patients, not the state.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/