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/

(With apologies to Paul Simon)
​
In last week's post, The Great Australian Die-Off, I discussed the alarming increase in excess mortality - deaths above the expected level, in a given population over a given time-period - that has occurred in Australia since the roll-out of the experimental RNA transfection agents (falsely marketed to the public as 'vaccines') began.

As I noted in that article, there was no excess mortality in Australia in the pre-injection phase of the declared COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, Neil and Fenton's analysis of data from around the world indicates that neither COVID itself, nor long COVID, nor lockdowns, nor rationing of healthcare services, can explain the excess mortality seen in the 30-odd countries for which they could obtain adequate data on each variable. I strongly encourage you to read their article The Devil's Advocate: An Exploratory Analysis of 2022 Excess Mortality before continuing on, as it neatly dispenses with the pathetic (non)explanations for excess mortality that the legacy media have vomited up in service of their corporate masters, such as this pathetic waste of cybercharacters from that former bastion of journalistic integrity, the Sydney Morning Herald, or this piece of scintillating stenography ("We asked the TGA if the jabs are killing people, and they said 'Nah, course not!'") from the Canberra Weekly, or this remarkably fact-free 'fact check' from the Trusted News Initiative's bottom-shelf whore, the ABC.

Of course, the fact that jab-happy nations are racking up excess mortality whereas largely unjabbed Africa has shrugged off COVID while racking up lower excess mortality than Eurasia and the Americas, does not prove that the experimental transfection agents are responsible for the unexpected deaths. As I discussed in If the COVID-19 injections work, why are more people dying? Part 2, the Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill’s Criteria for Causality, are used to distinguish causal from non-causal associations between phenomena. Here are those criteria:

1. Strength of association – The stronger the association, the more likely it is that the relation is causal.
2. Temporal relationship – Exposure always precedes the outcome.
3. Consistency – The association is consistent when results are replicated with different people under different circumstances and with different measurement instruments.
4. Theoretical plausibility – It is easier to accept an association as causal when there is a rational and theoretical basis for such a conclusion.
5. Coherence – The association should be compatible with existing theory, hypotheses, and knowledge.
6. Specificity – In the ideal situation, the effect has only one cause. (In practice, an effect may have multiple contributing causes; for example, a genetic predisposition to lung cancer may combine with cigarette smoking and low intake of cancer-preventing nutrients to result in lung cancer.)
7. Dose response relationship – An increasing amount of exposure increases the risk.
8. Experimental evidence – Any related research that is based on experiments will make a causal inference more plausible.
9. Analogy – Sometimes a commonly accepted phenomenon in one area can be applied to another area.

Back when I wrote that article, far less was known about biologically plausible mechanism/s by which the transfection agents could cause injury and death, which are required to fulfil criterion #4. In the ensuing year, many scientific papers have been published (and many more yet-to-be-published papers have been uploaded to preprint servers) which elucidate those mechanisms. No doubt more will become evident in the months to years to come, so I will update this post as new information comes in.​

Importantly, the accumulating body of evidence on mechanisms of harm dispenses with the hand-waving arguments quoted in the 'RMIT ABC Fact Check', namely that the excess non-COVID deaths couldn't possibly have been caused by the safe-and-effective™ vaccines, because they were attributed to dementia, cancer, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, and infectious diseases other than COVID... and as for the historically unprecedented number of deaths attributed to "unspecified diseases", the Australian Actuaries Institute's spokesmuppet Karen Cutter dismisses these with the air-headed claim that "this is a large 'catch-all' category" from which it is difficult to draw conclusions. Well, yeah, it's very difficult to draw conclusions about whether someone's death was caused by an RNA transfection agent if you don't utilise the correct procedures during autopsy, or you don't autopsy them at all.

(For detailed presentations on how to detect spike protein generated by the transfection agents and the immune reaction to them during autopsy, and how to distinguish this from the effects of infection with SARS-CoV-2, watch the videos on this page.)
Mechanism #1: Impaired immune functionBy now, many people have seen the following graph, from a study of Cleveland Clinic healthcare workers, which shows a clear dose-response relationship between COVID-19 shots and the risk of getting COVID - that is, the more injections, the more infections:

The Cleveland Clinic study confirms many people's anecdotal observations that their multiply-jabbed friends are not just 'getting COVID' (whatever that means) every second Tuesday; they're also picking up all manner of other infections. Meanwhile, those who either decided against receiving any experimental injections, or called it quits after the initial series, are remaining remarkably unscathed.

Several papers elucidating mechanisms of immune suppression that could explain these phenomena have been published:

• A seminal paper published in March 2022, 'Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination' found that people who got infected with SARS-CoV-2 initially mounted an immune response tailored to the particular variant that infected them, and then developed a broad immunological response to viral variants, over several months post-infection. However, the immune systems of people who had received an mRNA transfection agent were 'locked in' to producing useless antibodies against the original but now extinct Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2, rendering them susceptible to being reinfected over and over again with new variants of the virus. These reinfections repeatedly expose them to the hazards of the virus' spike protein. And, even worse, both mRNA from the experimental injections, and spike protein stimulated by them, was found in the germinal centres of lymph nodes for up to two months post-injection (after which testing stopped).
• An article published in June 2022, titled 'Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs' reports that the mRNA transfection agents suppress type 1 interferon response, resulting in impairment of innate immunity, the body's first-line defence against both viruses and bacteria. In other words, impaired innate immunity increases susceptibility not just to repeated bouts of COVID-19, but to other infectious agents such as RSV, influenza and strep A. That 'tripledemic' of flu, COVID and RSV that the mockingbird media have been incessantly squawking about, may well have been brought on by suppression of type 1 interferon, as may the disappearance of viral interference that held flu and RSV in check when SARS-CoV-2 first emerged.
• The immune system's ability to suppress the herpes zoster virus is also impaired by RNA transfection agents. Herpes zoster virus causes chickenpox on first exposure, and then reverts to a latent form inside nerve cells. Immune suppression can trigger it to reemerge in later life as shingles. Not only can shingles itself be fatal, especially in older age groups, but it is also associated with a higher long‐term risk of a major cardiovascular event. In August 2022, an article titled 'Real-world evidence from over one million COVID-19 vaccinations is consistent with reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus' found an 80 per cent higher risk of developing shingles in people who had received a COVID-19 injection.
• A preprint posted in September 2022, 'Correlates of protection, viral load trajectories and symptoms in BA.1, BA.1.1 and BA.2 breakthrough infections in triple vaccinated healthcare workers', notes that 22 per cent of 368 Swedish healthcare workers developed an infection with the Omicron variant within 4 weeks of receiving an mRNA booster, and that most participants had a persistently high viral load and showed delayed clearance of the virus, indicating not only that their immune system was struggling to vanquish it, but also that they were still infectious for up to 9 days after first testing positive on qPCR.

To summarise, a growing body of evidence shows that COVID-19 transfection agents impair immune function in ways that increase susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses, and decrease the immune system's ability to suppress latent viruses. Those who wish to argue that the excess deaths seen in Australia and overseas are at least partly due to after-effects of COVID-19, and to the reemergence of influenza, need to reckon with the fact that the transfection agents are causing people to become repeatedly reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and to be more susceptible to infection with other viruses.
SubscribeMechanism #2: Extensive damage to the cardiovascular systemA review article published in November 2022, 'Clinical cardiovascular emergencies and the cellular basis of COVID-19 vaccination: from dream to reality?', sifted through data from published case reports, studies and pharmacovigilance databases to compile a comprehensive list of adverse effects of the experimental transfection agents on the heart, blood vessels and cellular components of blood.

These damaging impacts include:

• Incitement of pro-inflammatory immune cells, and/or generation of self-antibodies (i..e. an autoimmune reaction) to cells of the heart muscle and the fluid-filled sac that surrounds it, leading to myocarditis and pericarditis. Myocarditis may lead to cardiac arrest (the sudden loss of all heart activity due to an irregular heart rhythm).
• Abnormal clotting, with or without depletion of platelets (thrombosis and thrombocytopenia), through induction of antibodies against clotting factors and inflammatory cytokines, platelet activation and aggregation, increased vascular permeability (blood vessel leakiness) and activation of the endothelial cells that line blood vessels. Thrombotic events can also lead to heart attacks and strokes.
• Interaction of spike protein generated by the transfection agents with ACE2 receptors, causing hypertensive crisis (sudden and dramatic elevation of blood pressure).
• Hypersensitivity reactions to excipients (substances other than the active drug), leading to Kounis syndrome, an acute coronary syndrome in which a severe allergic response shuts down blood supply to the heart muscle, by causing coronary vessels to go into spasm, atherosclerotic plaque to abruptly erode, and stents to occlude (block up) with mast cells and/or eosinophils (types of white blood cells). This constellation of pathologies can lead to a myocardial infarction (heart attack).
• Induction of arrhythmias (abnormal health rhythms) including tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, sinus tachycardia, and supraventricular tachycardia, along with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). One potential cause of these arrhythmias is an autoimmune response against adrenergic receptors in the cardiovascular system.
• A systemic inflammatory reaction that sensitises patients to catecholamines (acute stress hormones), leading to Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Also known as stress cardiomyopathy or, more colloquially, 'broken heart syndrome', this condition manifests in a sudden temporary weakening of the muscular portion of the heart. It confers a nearly 10 per cent risk of major cardiac events (such as heart attack, stroke and heart failure) and a 5.6 per cent patient mortality rate per year.

​The authors even provided a handy-dandy chart summarising all the fun and exciting ways that the experimental transfection agents can damage your cardiovascular system:

At the end of their discussion of the transfection agents' association with cardiac arrest and death, the authors make a summary statement which you should read several times, slowly, to let it sink in:
"Given the observed mortality, recommendations for vaccination in the elderly (aged >80 years) should be reconsidered. In patients with multimorbidity in a suboptimal situation before vaccination, vaccine-drug and vaccine-disease interactions in polypharmacy users might have contributed to worsened health outcomes (Qamar et al., 2022). The general vaccination response and potential immune stimulation might be sufficient to trigger decompensation of underlying diseases and prompt death (Thomas et al., 2021)."

Clinical cardiovascular emergencies and the cellular basis of COVID-19 vaccination: from dream to reality?
In other words, the people whom we're told are in gravest need of the experimental transfection agents, because they are at the highest risk of a severe outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection, are also at the highest risk of being fatally injured by the jabs. Do you see now how utterly duplicitous it is for Professor Tom Marwick, director of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, to wave away the excess deaths as just an escalation of a preexisting burden of cardiovascular risk factors, or for the Australian Actuaries Institute's Karen Cutter to insist that the injections couldn't possibly be causing excess deaths because most of those deaths are occurring in the elderly, whereas the majority of young and middle-aged adults got jabbed too?

Even if one accepts their argument that COVID-19 itself is causing increased cardiovascular deaths because of the damaging effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on the heart and blood vessels, let's remember that the risk of infection with currently-circulating strains of the virus is increased, in a stepwise fashion, the more jabs one submits to. Whichever way you try to slice and dice it, either directly or indirectly the injections are causing excess cardiovascular deaths.

​
Mechanism #3: Impaired synthesis of regulatory proteinsThe authors of the previously cited paper 'Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs' also noted that they have identified "potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance" triggered by the large amounts of spike protein production induced by the injections. These disturbances could "potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis."

In other words, by messing with the body's normal patterns of response to infection, the mRNA injections set off a cascade of harmful effects that ripples throughout virtually every system of the body. But is there evidence that this is indeed happening? The authors found an unprecedentedly high number of reports of each condition mentioned above in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), the US vaccine pharmacovigilance tool.
​
In addition, case reports of these types of injuries are increasingly appearing in the medical literature, such as this report of a 60 year old doctor who developed lymphoma in his left cervical lymph nodes five months after completing his primary series of Pfizer transfection agents in his left deltoid muscle, only to experience rapid development of cancerous lesions in his right armpit and neck, within eight days of receiving a Pfizer booster in his right deltoid:


​

Conclusion

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) asserts that it is "false and unscientific to automatically conclude that vaccines caused these [excess] deaths". I agree. Each unexpected death should be thoroughly investigated by unbiased experts, rather than being airily dismissed as 'Sudden Adult Death Syndrome', which we're now all supposed to believe is incredibly common; somehow we just didn't notice before that perfectly healthy young and middle-aged people were abruptly dropping dead in the midst of their daily activities, or going to sleep and never waking up. (See Mark Crispin Miller's Substack for a gut-wrenching weekly compendium of reports of these ‘died suddenly’ deaths from all over the world.)

Subject to permission of the deceased's family, an autopsy should be conducted on each of these deaths, using the protocol developed by experienced German pathologist, Dr Arne Burkhardt. This protocol includes immunohistochemistry to detect the spike and nucleocapsid proteins of SARS-CoV-2 (which distinguishes infection from inoculation as a cause of death), and to detect infiltration of tissues by specific immune cells that respond to components of the injections.

When the TGA insists that "There is no credible evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccines have contributed to excess deaths in Australia or overseas", I can only assume that they are, like Admiral Nelson, holding the telescope up to their blind eye. Nelson's recklessness won battles; the TGA's is costing thousands of Australian lives.

Despite all the obfuscation, misdirection and outright lying of the government, its media mouthpieces and even trade associations like the Australian Actuaries Institute, there are far more proven mechanisms by which the COVID-19 transfection agents damage, disable and kill, than ways that Paul Simon came up with for leaving your lover:

You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Oh, you hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
You just listen to me
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
50 Ways to Leave Your Lover

The fact that the agency charged with ensuring that the medicines Australians take are safe and effective shows no interest whatsoever in investigating the historically unprecedented tsunami of injuries and deaths that has occurred since the 'vaccine' roll-out began, speaks volumes on whom they really serve.
​

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/there-must-be-fifty-ways-to-leave?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=298162&post_id=99364887&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email

https://substack.com/profile/29386713-robyn-chuter?utm_source=about-page

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/if-the-covid-19-injections-work-why-9dd?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web


That topic is the unexplained (or at least, officially uninvestigated) increase in excess mortality that has occurred since the roll-out of the RNA transfection agents commonly known as ‘COVID-19 vaccines’.
This excess mortality is evident in many, if not most countries around the world that pushed these transfection agents onto their populations. However in honour of the day on which this glorious nation was originally founded, as a penal colony on which the British Empire could dump the overflow of petty criminals generated by its rapid industrialisation, in this post I’ll be focusing on excess mortality in the land Down Under.
​
Let’s start with defining some terms that will be used throughout this article:

• Mortality is the number of deaths for a given area during a given period.
• Excess mortality refers to an unusual increase in mortality during a specific time period, in a given population.
• Age-standardised death rate (SDR) is the death rate of a population adjusted to a standard age distribution. It is calculated as a weighted average of the age-specific death rates of a given population; the weights are the age distribution of that population. SDR is useful for comparing mortality in populations which have very different age structures from each other (for example, sub-Saharan African countries have proportionally more young people, while western European countries have more old people) and also for comparing mortality in a given population as its age structure changes over time.

The benefit of using excess mortality as a metric to assess the impact of both COVID-19 and the various policy responses to it is that it circumvents the ‘died with COVID vs died from COVID’ conundrum. While eminently qualified people could (and have) argued all day over whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 was a major, minor or insignificant contributing factor to the demise of people who are included in the ‘COVID death count’, total mortality leaves nothing to argue about. Either one is officially dead, meaning a death certificate has been issued and the death is registered with the jurisdiction’s central registry and included in national statistics, or one is not.

If a population was confronted with a deadly pathogen to which they had no immunity (which was the story we were all told about SARS-CoV-2), we would expect to see mortality increase over baseline at first, as those with the least resistance (the elderly and medically fragile) succumbed. Then, as the population gained immunity to the pathogen, mortality would eventually drop below baseline. This phenomenon is known as mortality displacement, or the harvesting effect: the deaths of many people with seriously compromised health are pulled forward by anything from a couple of days to a year or so, leaving fewer frail people to die in the subsequent year.
Furthermore, if a successful intervention was developed against the pathogen – such as a safe and effective vaccine that hastened the development of herd immunity and protected medically fragile people against serious illness, we would expect to see mortality decline even further below baseline, as the lives of those closest to death are prolonged somewhat by such an intervention.

Let’s see how these predictions stack up against measurable reality.
Total mortalityNotably, mortality was lower in 2020 – the year of the Deadly New Virus – than the average of the previous five years, by all measures, while it increased in 2021 and 2022. Specifically:

• The average age-standardised death rate (SDR) for the years 2015-19 was 459.0 per 100,000 people, vs 424.5 in 2020 and 431.0 in 2021.
• The SDR for the entire year of 2022 is not yet available, but the SDR per month in 2022 was above the baseline average from January through to August. The number of deaths that occurred between 1 January and 30 September 2022 (144,650 deaths) was a full 16 per cent above the baseline average. I’m sure I don’t need to point out that these additional deaths occurred after the vast majority of the adult population, and a substantial proportion of the child population, received at least two injections of a transfection agent that was supposed to ‘end the pandemic’.

The following graph tells the tale. Note the regular mid-year surges in mortality in 2015-2019, corresponding with the winter respiratory illness season; 2017 was a particularly severe flu year. Note also the departure from this pattern in 2020, with a series of pre-winter mortality spikes correlating with lockdown, and a blunted mid-year spike; the larger mid-year spike in 2021 compared to 2020; and the huge spike in mortality early in 2022 (a time of year when mortality is typically very low in Australia) followed by a massive mid-year surge.

The group behind the class action is No More Silence, a not for profit formed for the purpose of fundraising for the legal and associated costs for class action proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, on behalf of those injured by the Covid vaccines.
​
The class action is free to join. Compensation will go to Covid vaccine injured patients only.
The class action is self-funded by the doctor (who at this time remains anonymous) who initiated the action, with additional funding via a crowdfunding campaign.
YOU CAN DONATE TO THE CLASS ACTION HERE
The action will argue that the TGA, Prof John Skerritt and others are responsible for the compensation of injuries due to failures in regulating (approving and monitoring) the Covid vaccines.
There is now a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the TGA was incompetent at best (and criminally negligent at worst). You can read a brief summary of just some of the most serious concerns via Letters From Australia:

Journalist Rebecca Weisner expanded on TGA errors and oversights in a recent piece for Spectator Australia, Are genetically modified vaccines safe?, in which she states, “It is painfully obvious that the TGA does not have the expertise to assess the safety of the Covid vaccines.”

​WHO CAN JOIN THE CLASS ACTION?

• Anyone who experienced a severe adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) with one of the Covid vaccines
• Families of people who died following Covid vaccination can also join on behalf of the deceased
• You do not have to prove that the vaccine caused the illness or death, only that the illness or death occurred immediately following vaccination. This includes cases where a prior illness was greatly exacerbated following vaccination.
• In Australia, class actions are ‘opt out’, so you can withdraw at any time
• You can join even if you have received compensation via the government Covid vaccine compensation scheme

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CASE WINS?

• The goal of winning this class action is that all Australians who have been Covid vaccine injured will be compensated
• People who have joined and are named in the Class Action will likely receive additional compensation as determined by the courts
• All monies will go to the injured and the families of the deceased.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CASE LOSES?

• You are free to pursue legal action against any other party (vaccine manufacturer, your employer, state premiers, CHOs)
• The only thing you cannot do is file the same Class Action against the same persons again

HOW DO I EXPRESS INTEREST?
Email admin@nomoresilenceau.com with as much information as possible:

• Name, age, location
• Date(s) of vaccination and batch numbers
• A brief description of your timeline and the nature of your injury
• Applications close end of January 2023

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CLASS ACTION HERE
If you are not injured, but you wish to support the class action financially, you can do so here:

DONATE TO THE COVID VACCINE CLASS ACTION
I have spoken to the founder of No More Silence, who wishes to remain anonymous. The person is a doctor who witnessed many vaccine injuries first-hand, and is motivated to redress the lack of acknowledgement, support and compensation available to these victims.

A final note to those who may have championed Covid vaccine mandates, or who unwittingly participated in the social pressuring of people to ‘roll up’ and take an improperly tested jab for the public good -
This is an opportunity to set things right.

If you can afford it, you might consider making a financial contribution to the class action. You can also forward this information on to friends who you know are either injured, or who are in a position to financially contribute. There will be other opportunities. Just make sure you take one (or several) of them.

​https://rebekahbarnett.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-class-action-calling?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=791657&post_id=96968865&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

This Christmas, I gained some insight into the psyche of the Cult Covidian.
You see, I know a Vaccinator. Specifically, this person was promoted to lead a Covid vaccination taskforce, until recently being deployed to team Monkeypox (not joking). I will use the pronoun ‘they’, not because ‘they’ are non-binary, but rather to protect their identity somewhat.

Several days before Christmas I shared my latest work in a Whatsapp group that this person is in - the Umbrella News piece I did on vaccine injury in the wake of Dr Kerryn Phelps’s own bombshell injury revelation.

For context, over the past two years there has been a respectful kind of nodding acknowledgement of each other’s work and stakes in the game. Early in the vaccination program I asked The Vaccinator, “what’s the difference between the various brands of vaccines?” They couldn’t tell me. I probed further - what’s in them though? What are the active ingredients? “I don’t know,” they shrugged, “I’m just glad for the promotion.”

Shortly after their own Covid vaccination, The Vaccinator exhibited what is now a well-documented side effect of the vaccines, but at the time was still officially denied by all sources due to ‘absence of evidence’ (which is so often conflated with evidence of absence). The Vaccinator went to many doctor’s appointments to deal with this issue and complained bitterly about the symptoms, totally baffled by them. To the best of my knowledge, neither The Vaccinator nor the doctor ever joined the dots that they were dealing with a very common Covid vaccine side effect (if they did, it would have been many months later, after numerous appointments). Remember, this person was responsible for giving informed consent to hundreds, thousands of people before jabbing them with Covid vaccines.

So when I dropped this article into the group chat, I knew it might cause a bit of a fizz.
It was more of an eruption.
Swearing ensued.
Personal attacks. Demands that I cease and desist my line of work. And then, a complete boycott of a Christmas event that we were both due to attend.

Why?
Because I make The Vaccinator ‘feel bad about themselves.’ (And doesn’t modern pop psychology say that you should only hang out with people who make you feel good?)
So Christmas was cancelled, and the relationship is, for now, in the deep freeze.
A rather severe reaction to an article, and yet we see these kinds of reactions on social media every day. I just hadn’t experienced one at such close range.

Over Christmas (which was rescheduled to encompass several satellite events to ensure that The Vaccinator and I were never in the same room) I had the opportunity to reflect on what the flurry of activity that had unfolded in the group chat revealed about the psyche of the Cult Covidian.

1. They perceive talk of vaccine injury as a direct attack upon their identity.
This is a very tribal response and is apparent in the extremes of all cults/tribes, not just Cult Covidians. However, in this specific Cult, appeals to witness and support the injured are taken as an existential threat. This is completely baffling to non-Cult members, who can see merit in the delivery of healthcare (which includes vaccination to those who want it under conditions of informed consent), whilst also acknowledging that all medications come with side effects, which must be mitigated and managed.

2. They cannot face the idea that they may have caused harm, so instead they try to force you not to point it out.
“You make me feel bad about myself” is likely the appropriate response to realising that you may have mindlessly and unquestioningly jabbed several, tens, or even hundreds of people into a state of injury. This could form a unique opportunity for personal and professional growth. Or you could just double down and cut off anyone who is pointing to uncomfortable realities, in order to avoid addressing the dissonance.

3. They make it all about themselves (a common human foible).
Social justice goes out the window when Cult Covidians are confronted with vaccine injury. Suddenly, the oppressed (coerced and gaslit) minority is unimportant. The only thing that matters is their own feelings and that sweet promotion. As with point 2, all people are prone to this, but this particular blind spot around vaccine injury seems to be unique to the Cult Covidian.

4. They have completely succumbed to the black and white conditioning of our government and media - you are either pro-vax (good) or anti-vax (bad).
​
There is no room for anyone to be pro-vax and pro-injured, or pro-vax but also pro-choice, or pro-choice and pro-injured. You’re with us or you’re against us. Drawing attention to the collateral damage of the vaccination program is ‘against us’.
On this occasion I was a bit blindsided by the intensity of the reaction that my article provoked, and so our exchange was chaotic and combative. I don’t regret sharing the article, as I think all health practitioners ought to be exposed to the impacts of their work, good and bad. An ignorant practitioner can be deadly to a patient. However, if I'd paused a longer beat I would rather have responded with questions like:

• Why don't you want me to talk about it?
• Why does it make you feel bad?
• Does it bother you that the injured are getting acknowledged? Why is that?
• What do you think about Dr Kerryn Phelps going public with her injury? She said that AHPRA has censored medical professionals. Have you ever experienced this yourself?

I’m inclined to think that arguing logically is not the way to reach people who are so deeply embedded in the Cult. It’s an identity, not just a set of ideas. I wrote a whole thesis on Listening Culture in which I spent chapters explaining that listening and demonstrating understanding of the other’s position is the precondition to changing their minds. It’s really hard to do in practice! Especially when they explode and cut you off. But on reflection, I think they best way to go about it is gentle questioning.

Sarcasm and irony can also work, especially with a grin. A friend describes his brother’s favourite quip: "You see so and so was fully vaxxed and then died from Covid. Gee, lucky he was fully vaxxed or .... (pause) he’d be DOUBLE DEAD."
If anyone else has walked into a situation like this, I'd like to hear how you handled it.

It's that time of year again.
​
​Christmas carols blaring from the stores tell us that "It's the most wonderful time of the year", but most of the people maxing out their credit cards inside those stores don't look like they're taking the advice to "be of good cheer".
According to a comprehensive review of the depression-inducing effects of added sugars published in Medical Hypotheses, maybe they would feel better if they weren't fuelling their Christmas gift-buying/Boxing Day sale marathon with sugary foods and beverages.

(Come to think of it, they would probably feel a lot better if they chose not to stress themselves to the eyeballs and bury themselves in debt in the first place, but that's an article for another day. Oh and by the way, if you know anyone who would rather receive valuable information on health and well-being than yet another pair of socks or Christmas sweater, you could always…)



The review, titled The depressogenic potential of added dietary sugars, summarises the current state of scientific knowledge on the effects of the ubiquitous sweet stuff on our mood, and the mechanisms by which those effects occur.
First, what is the evidence that added sweeteners sour our mood? There are three types of study designs that can shed light on the sugar-mood connection:

1. Cross-sectional studies, which examine people's current sugar intake to see if there is any association between high and low consumption and how depressed they are;
2. Cohort studies, which track a large group of people over time to see if their sugar intake affects their risk of becoming depressed; and
3. Experimental studies, which deliberately manipulate participants' sugar intake in order to gauge short-term effects on mood.

All three types of studies provide quite clear and consistent evidence that the more added sugars a person consumes, the higher their risk of depression.
For example, a meta-analysis of ten cross-sectional studies found that those who consumed the most sugar-sweetened beverages (such as soft drinks, sweetened iced tea, juice drinks and energy drinks) had a 30 per cent higher risk of being depressed than those who drank the least.

Prospective cohort studies find a roughly 20 per cent higher risk of becoming depressed in those with the highest consumption of added sugars compared with the lowest, and once again, consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is a particular culprit.
And experimental studies show that added sugars do not have any beneficial effect on mood (contrary to the popular belief in the 'sugar rush' effect), and in fact have deleterious effects on components of mood, including alertness and fatigue.

​

So now we come to the second question: how does the consumption of added sugars affect our mood and depression risk?
The review proposes 6 primary mechanisms: inflammation, gut dysbiosis, dysregulation of dopamine pathways, oxidative stress, insulin resistance and formation of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs). These mechanisms interact with each other in complex ways:

I've written many articles about the role that our resident gut bacteria play in health and disease, including mental health (see, for example, Gut bugs and human health: A tale of two evolutionary trajectories, Fat chance of having a healthy gut, Anxiety and the gut microbiome: How your gut bugs can chill you out or stress you out, and Of bugs and brains - how your gut microbiome affects mental health, for starters).
I've also covered the inflammation-depression connection (see Inflammation: why you're fat, sick, tired, depressed and in pain... and what to do about it and Rumination inflammation), and as you can see from the above diagram, inflammation is inextricably linked with oxidative stress, insulin resistance and AGE formation.



So in this article, I'm going to hone in on the effect of sugar consumption on dopamine signalling in the brain.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter - a chemical messenger that allows nerve cells to talk to each other, and to muscle and gland cells - associated with reward, learning and motivation. In my previous article, Reprogramming your stone age brain for health and happiness, I explained how the dopamine system gets 'hijacked' by supernormal stimuli such as hyperpalatable foods (those rich in calories, fat, refined carbohydrates and/or salt).
Research on sugar in particular indicates that it stimulates the dopamine system, in a dose-dependent fashion; that is, the higher the intake of sugar, the greater the release of dopamine. In the short term, this results in an intense sensation of reward, which prompts us to reach for more sugar... and THAT'S why it's so hard to stop at one slice of cake or one doughnut!
However, continual high intake of sugar causes maladaptive changes in the structure and function of dopamine pathways. Over time, the brain reduces the number of dopamine receptors in an attempt to protect itself against continual overstimulation of dopamine pathways (much like people develop 'tolerance' to addictive drugs, requiring higher and higher doses to get high).
Interestingly, reduced dopamine activity has been observed in the brains of depressed people. This is associated with the decreased ability to experience pleasure (anhedonia), and the enormous difficulty in motivating themselves to take any actions that might improve their lives, that depressed people experience.
Or in science-speak,
"A substantial body of evidence suggests that chronic added sugar ingestion can interfere with intrinsic reward systems in a manner capable of inducing anhedonia and motivational deficits. Both are hallmark symptoms and maintenance factors of depression."
The depressogenic potential of added dietary sugars
Put plainly, over time, eating too much sugar makes you feel like all the joy has been sucked out of life, and causes you to feel like you couldn't be bothered doing anything - what's the point, when nothing you do brings you any enjoyment? And the more unmotivated you become, the less you engage in any activities that could make you feel better about yourself, and life in general. It's quite literally a depressing downward spiral.



Reversing this spiral is not easy. As a person's dopamine system adapts to a constant barrage of excessive sugar, higher and higher degrees of sweetness are required for them to experience any sensation of reward from eating.
If this person suddenly drops all added sugars and attempts to follow a wholefood plant-based diet, he or she will at first experience no enjoyment from the new way of eating, and will be tempted to abandon it without a clear understanding that this is a temporary state, which will correct itself over time.
How long does it take? The very unsatisfactory answer is, it depends. Genetic variations in dopamine receptor activity, the amount of added sugar the person was previously consuming, the length of time they've been overconsuming sugar, and the level of stress in their life will all impact on how quickly their dopamine system recovers its equilibrium to the point where they can once again perceive the natural level of sweetness in whole, natural foods as rewarding.
And there's an additional complication: in the early stages of this recalibration process, added sugar becomes even more reinforcing. That is, if you cut out all added sugars for 1 week and then eat something with an added sweetener, you'll find it even more rewarding than previously, when you were eating sugar all the time.
I see this pattern frequently in my clients: they stick to a healthy diet with no added sugar for a couple of days, weeks or even months, notice how great they're feeling and how much sweeter natural foods such as fruits and starchy vegetables taste to them... then they let down their guard, eat just one slice of cake, piece of chocolate or scoop of ice cream, and find themselves bingeing uncontrollably. Back to square one.
How do you escape this dietary Pleasure Trap?

• Clean up your food environment to the fullest extent possible, by purging your home, car and (ideally) workplace of foods and beverages with added sugar.
  
• Consider doing a water-only fast to rapidly recalibrate your dopamine system. In general, healthy, unmedicated people under the age of 65 can safely fast at home for up to three days; anyone with a diagnosed health condition and/or who is taking prescribed medications should seek qualified supervision, preferably in an inpatient setting.
  
• Adopt a daily mindfulness practice (see Reprogramming your stone age brain for health and happiness) to enhance your awareness of the true reward value of your health-supporting and health-eroding behaviours.
  
• Learn to use Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) to rapidly defuse food cravings (see Understanding – and beating – food cravings).
  
• Cultivate healthy sources of pleasure in your life, for example listening to music, spending time in nature and with good friends, spending time on a hobby... and my personal favourite, hanging out with dogs:
  
  ​One more thing: naturally occurring sugars, such as those that make fruit taste sweet, are not a problem. In fact, high consumption of fruit is one of the dietary factors that has been found to be most protective against depression (see The evidence is in: Eating better relieves depression and Want to feel happier? Change what’s on your plate!).
  
  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-DnznA0m9k&t=15s

I’ve seen plenty of examples of this in my practice:

• Men whose ‘routine’ PSA testing resulted in a diagnosis of prostate cancer (generally a slow-growing cancer which can be often be managed using lifestyle modification) for which they were aggressively treated, resulting in urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction and bowel damage from radiation treatment;
• Women whose ‘routine’ scan detected thyroid cancer (again, generally a slow-growing cancer for which the death rate has held steady over the last few decades while the incidence has increased dramatically, indicating substantial overdiagnosis) resulting in surgery, radiation treatment and a lifetime of thyroid hormone replacement therapy; and even
• A woman whose ‘routine’ blood tests revealed elevated levels of a marker of autoimmune disease, for the ‘treatment’ of which her doctor prescribed a highly toxic medication, specifically contraindicated during breastfeeding, even though the woman had absolutely no symptoms and was currently breastfeeding her baby!

Recently, in a Facebook group to which I belong, a woman whose ‘routine’ blood test had detected low ferritin (iron stores) reported that her doctor had prescribed an iron supplement, although she had no other blood markers of iron insufficiency, no symptoms of iron deficiency, and a perfectly normal haemoglobin level. Iron supplements are not without harms, and the decision to supplement with iron should be carefully considered, and definitely not based on a one-off blood test.
​
It’s important to remember that lots of perfectly healthy people live outside the reference ranges printed on blood test reports. For example, I have several clients whose ferritin levels have been in the ‘iron depleted’ range for over 10 years, yet they’ve never developed anaemia or any symptoms indicating inadequate iron status. Conversely, plenty of unhealthy people live inside reference ranges; everyone knows at least one junk food-munching couch potato whose cholesterol level and blood pressure are ‘perfect’!

The bottom line is, if you have no symptoms of illness, and don’t already have a diagnosed condition such as type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease which requires regular monitoring, you don’t need ‘routine’ blood tests – with a couple of exceptions, such as monitoring serum vitamin B12 levels if you’re on a plant-based diet and haven’t been consistent with your supplementation. Furthermore, having those tests may do you more harm than good.
If, on the other hand, you have symptoms that don’t respond to intelligently-directed lifestyle changes, or that worsen rapidly, then get to a doctor or hospital and have all the (clinically indicated, rationally chosen) tests you need to find out what’s wrong with you.