Vaccine Mania hit fever pitch in December 2021, the same winter that the White House declared would be a ‘winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated’. However, following the inexplicable and inconvenient survival of this group, we have seen a gradual trickle of backtracking. After saying that they would be unable to release the original trial data for 55 years, Pfizer were forced to do so by court order. The CDC then acknowledged that natural immunity worked better than their vaccines. Shortly after, CDC Director admitted that their deployment of vaccines – and the related policies that included the removal of human rights who had different viewpoints – were based mainly on ‘optimism’. Further admissions have slowly emerged over lockdown, masking and school closures. The rise in heart attacks, cancers and autoimmune conditions has become increasingly difficult to hide. The AstraZeneca jab has even been pulled.

But over the last month, this trickle is becoming a flood. The ONS have admitted that they classified deaths in the newly-vaccinated as unvaccinated, the NIH have admitted that there was never any evidence for the social distancing policies. Perhaps most explosive of all is the testimony of David Morens, Fauci’s scientific advisor, admitting to breaking federal laws and taking part in a conspiracy to hide the role the NIH had played in funding the gain-of-function research in Wuhan (ie. that they caused the crisis).

The ’Best Information At The Time’ Stage

While it remains to be seen if Fauci is indeed held accountable for both his crimes and for perjuring himself to Congress, it’s clear we’ve reached the latest stage in the pandemic, whereby the same people that shilled for the pharmaceutical giants are now making awkward U-turns to claim that ‘we didn’t know enough’ and that ‘we were operating on the best information, based on what we knew at the time’. Two particularly noticeable examples involve former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, who aggressively shamed those who were hesitant about vaccination or those who used Ivermectin, has confessed to being vaccine-injured and to using ivermectin.

A further (particularly ignoble) example was the ‘confession’ of Dr Ranj Singh, who meekly faced the music when it was revealed that he had been receiving payments from AstraZeneca during Spring 2021, while regularly appearing on daytime TV to push their untested products on an anxious public.  Here is the video of him meekly claiming that he was using “the best information on what we knew at the time” (inbetween mudslinging at the ‘anti-vaxxers, of course). For those that do not recall the BS he pushed at the time, here is taking about the vaccines offering “100% protection”.

Now while the ‘the best information we had at the time’ line is nauseating and unsatisfactory to those of us who had to endure that time (and the losses of income, relationships and loved ones in the time since), the number of cheerleaders that are joining the line for confession does open a window of opportunity for dialogue.

This is an important area to focus on, given that dialogue with the Go-Along-To-Get-Along sector has been so impossible in recent times (and yet remains our only real hope of avoiding future rounds of tyranny). And, while I don’t for a second expect that we this will permit fruitful conversation with the more fanatical element, it does open the ‘Overton window’ enough that we may be able to engage in discussion with the big chunk of the population (who, rightly or wrongly, have come to reflexively dismiss any ideas until they have been acknowledged by the mainstream newspapers).

Thus, for the first time since the world began clapping the NHS every Thursday night because they were told to, I can see scenarios playing out at gatherings where our family and friends may just be open to the idea that their ‘anti-vaxxer’ pals didn’t just ‘get lucky’ on each and every discussion point and may have actually known something that they didn’t. And that maybe, just maybe, they might acknowledge the internal suspicions that they have kept buried throughout and ask the key question: “how did you know?”

In other words, there is a chance that significant numbers of people will be willing to mull over the facts for the first time in over four years. The entire charade – and any future chicanery – comes unstuck when enough people do so.

So, just in case such conversations actually come to bear, here is a recap of what we already knew in Spring 2021. (with embedded links to share with those that missed it at the time).

 

What We Already Knew… About the Threat

• 1. We already knew that, whenever authorities employ Dr Neil Ferguson, the ICL professor dubbed ‘Dr Death’, they have no interest in obtaining accurate modelling and instead only wish to create fear. Although it was Ferguson’s modelling that was used by government’s across the globe to justify the draconian approaches taken, his track record prior to COVID makes for start reading. His track record had been to predict that the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak in cattle would result in 150,000 deaths, yet the total ended up at less than 200. In 2002, he predicted 50,000 deaths from BSE; the actual numbers totalled 177. He was brought in to hype up the Bird Flu scare in 2005 and warned of 150 million deaths; the reality was 282. He was at it again in the 2009 Bird Flu panic; his estimate was 65,000, the real number ended up at 457 (summary here). One of the major problems with the code used for modelling in all these scenarios is that it did not account for the action of the immune system. One of the many coincidences – that would frame most twists over the coming years – is that he has continually received funding from Bill Gates. We knew that no scientist could seriously trust the advice Ferguson gave about the need for lockdowns and social distancing and, indeed, it came as no surprise to find out that Ferguson himself did not observe his own lockdown recommendations, which forced his resignation when they were later discovered.

 

• 2. We already knew that the mortality rate was less than that of seasonal flu. A Chinese study published in March 2020 tracked 1.9m people and found the IFR (Infection Fatality Ratio) was 0.04-0.12%, something it took authorities a couple of years to finally accept.

 

• 3. We already knew what affects the virus had in a worst case scenario; the world had watched on as the Diamond Princess cruise ship served as a ‘floating petri dish’. where thousands of elderly people (many with chronic health conditions) were confined to dark rooms and blasted with fearful messaging as COVID ripped through the ship. Billed as the sum of all our fears, the outcome was nothing unusual; although the media gleefully reported seven deaths over the course of the month, this was within the usual ranges expected for a ship carrying 3,500 passengers with a large numbers of over-80s and those with comorbities. John Ioannidis, the ‘godfather of medical statistics’, noted at the time we that we should expect an IFR of 0.125% in the general population; he was made a pariah at the time for calculations, which were then (quietly) acknowledged as accurate.

 

• 4. We already knew that the average age of someone who died with COVID was higher than the average life expectancy (which came from the UK Government’s own figures).

 

• 5. We already knew that it was on the loose in American for many months before anyone noticed; in research that ran from December 2019 to March 2020, antibody levels against SARS-Cov2 were 5x more common in New Yorkers compared to residents of Wuhan (25% vs 5%). Later research would show that that the threat was in Europe for at least six months without anyone even noticing. However, it’s fair to say we didn’t need this data to know that the threat was being over-hyped; common sense dictates that, if this was indeed as contagious as authorities were claiming, then it would not possibly have been contained in a single Chinese city for so long (indeed, Oxford University scientists had already shown in modelling that half the UK population would already have had exposure by March 2020)

 

• 6. We already knew that, despite the hype, there was simply nothing unusual going on in regards to respiratory pathogens (global summary here… as an example, the UK’s mortality rates were the ninth lowest since records began in 1943, adjusting for population change). Of course, this is not to say that there were no excess deaths, simply that these only occurred in areas that removed standard medical care, loaded the sick into nursing homes before making it illegal for residents to leave or to seek any social support, then pushed midazolam overdoses. These horrific policies oversaw the uneven distribution of excess deaths across Italy in February (which varied not by viral spread but by varying policies between political provinces (eg. Bergamo sent home many medical staff and experienced disaster, nearby Verona maintained business and usual and saw nothing out of the ordinary), a lack of deaths in Britain outside nursing homes (where 36,000 died in three weeks once the Government locked them in, transferred 4,500 infected patients into these homes and then pushed fatal doses of Midazolam on anyone that showed signs of distress (starting this ‘treatment’ at three times the recommended dosage).

 

• 7. We already knew that the level of fear induced by non-stop headlines was entirely out of touch with reality. Remember the outrageous hype about the Diamond Princess cruise ship (mentioned above), that ended up being yet another nothing burger? The shrieking about 500k people visiting Bournemouth beach? The breathless warnings about the consequences of people attending Cheltenham or Liverpool fans gathering in droves outside Anfield to celebrate their team winning the league? The commotion about mass graves and the media frenzy over the need to spend over half a billion pounds on the ‘Nightingale’ field hospitals (ie. those that ended up seeing only 53 patients)? It’s important to note that, by early 2021, it had already become public knowledge that the Government’s response team had agreed early on that ‘the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased… using hard hitting emotional messaging,’ alongside discussion on tactics to inflate the danger (something they later apologized for as ‘unethical’).

 

• 8. We already knew that, if the threat was as serious as they said it was, then there would be no need to air fake footage or to censor people who asked fair questions. We also knew that, if the Governmental-media complex was not invested in ‘selling’ panic, they would have corrected earlier scare stories rather than just silently moving on to the next talking point.

 

• 9. We already knew that, if the hospitals were as ‘close to collapse’ as the media was reporting, then there wouldn’t be time for whole wards of nurses to spend their entire days choreographing dances. It would also be the case that hospital occupancy would increase; it didn’t. In fact, the NHS reported the, lowest hospital occupancy figures since records began (offical figures showing only 60.4% occupancy from March to June 2020, versus a normal operating level above 90%)

 

• 10. We already knew that COVID deaths – that metric that featured in round-the-clock ticker boards on CNN and BBC – were hugely inflated. Governments around the world added to their numbers by defining a ‘COVID death’ as ‘“death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”. They had already been repeatedly caught out counting victims of gunshot wounds, car accidents and neurogenerative diseases as ‘COVID deaths’ (see here).

 

Summary: although all the official stats tell a clear story – no increase in respiratory deaths versus previous years, no increased demand at hospitals and excess mortality only occurring once unprecedented sociomedical policies were implemented – it ultimately comes down to this: we knew that no-one would have noticed the appearance of a flu-like illness with flu-like mortality unless they were told to. We know this because they didn’t.

 

What We Already Knew… About The Vaccine

 

• 11. We already knew that it would take a miracle for the ‘vaccine’ to work. Unprecedented vaccines take an average of 12.5 years to develop and have a 2% chance of making it to through a Phase III trial. We also knew that this 2% likelihood of success related to ‘normal’ vaccine products in general and that the likelihood of success on a coronavirus would be much, much lower. Even lower still if deploying the mRNA technology. We know this because, before 2020, every attempt to make a vaccine for coronavirus had failed (because it is not possible to vaccinated against RNA viruses due to the rapid rate of mutation). Previous attempts caused hypersensitivity in mice and liver damage in ferrets. We also knew that the mRNA platform had been a total failure before 2020 (see a 2017 article on how Moderna had spent years promising the world but had never been able to make it work and a later summary of the dismal safety record of these products before 2020), so testing in on billions of people seemed reckless. Especially alongside the blanket ban on any scepticism.

 

• 12. We already knew that, in the original Pfizer trial, the actual data showed no benefits in hard outcomes yet there were increased deaths in the experimental arm and a 3x increase in heart attacks in those who took the experimental treatment (with such problems discussed here).

 

• 13. We already knew that, even before independent researchers flagged up the contamination issue and a whistleblower explained that they’d invented trial data and 12-year-old Maddie de Garay was paralyzed in the Pfizer trial on adolescents (one for which they reported that ‘there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events’), we already knew that Pfizer were not a trustworthy company. Why? Because they had been fined more than any other company in history for dishonestly pushing their products.

 

• 14. We already knew that the need for any ‘miracle’ cure. 81% of unexposed individuals showed a T cell response to SARS-Cov2 (see study published in September 2020) and we already knew that children had roughly zero risk from COVID (official data from Germany showed that the number of healthy children had died during the ‘pandemic’ was exactly zero)

 

• 15. We already knew that, regardless of how good a product turns out to be (or not), it was morally bankrupt to tell pregnant women that this product was definitely safe for them to take (as not a single study had been conducted on pregnant women at any point).

 

• 16. We already knew that there had been three prior occasions when a rush-job vaccine had been deployed; the polio scare of 1955 and two swine flu panics (of 1976 and 2009, respectively). Each ended up in scandal. See here, here and here.

 

• 17. We already knew that one of the central mechanisms of the mRNA treatments was through immune suppression (see 2005 study here).

 

• 18. We already knew that the pharmaceutical companies themselves did not believe the ‘safe and effective’, ‘extensively tested’ narrative. Even as early as January 2021, we knew from leaked contracts that drug companies insisted on a clause in their governmental supply contracts that stated: “the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known”.

 

Summary: Every time a vaccine had been rushed, it had failed. Every time a vaccine was trialled for coronavirus, it had failed. Every time mRNA technology was tested, it had failed. The only difference this time out was that the companies were skipping the Phase II trials that had proved such an obstacle in the past.

 

What We Already Knew… About the People Pushing It

• 19. We already knew they had no interest in the truth. The only people hyping the experimental treatment as necessary were the same people who had previously hyped up the need for mass graves, emergency hospitals, ventilator usage, universal masking, school closures and destruction of small businesses. And when real life demonstrated ample evidence that this was a bad idea – see the cases of South Korea and Japan (as shown here), but also the awkward case of Sweden and the forgotten case of Belarus), plus all of the state-by-state comparisons for masking effectiveness etc etc – they turned to censorship.

 

• 20. We already knew they didn’t believe what they said. Whether it related to disregarding the lockdown rules that they had pushed on others, or their contempt for masking whenever they thought the cameras were off (one of many such videos here), it was clear from the very start that they felt this ‘threat’ was nothing to fear.

 

• 21. We already knew that, despite the rhetoric, they had no interest in what the science said (even their own) if it went against the narrative. They had ignored the entire body of science available on the usage of masks and the effectiveness of quarantine, especially relevant given that the WHO and the CDC were at the forefront of these campaigns (the 2019 report that found facemasks to be ineffective was written by the WHO, and the 2020 meta-analysis that found the same thing was a CDC paper). And the US surgeon general himself had taken to Twitter to declare that masks were ineffective.

 

• 22. We already knew they didn’t care about the people, even children. They insisted that this entire thing was based on compassion and the greater good, yet looked the other way upon the release of the Viner report (showing the costs of emergency measures in children, highlighting that there were more hospitalizations for mental health emergencies in this time than there were for respiratory infections).

 

• 23. We already knew they would say anything to support the vaccine cause. They howled about the danger posed by COVID but then tried everything in their power to block treating it with readily-available items like Ivermectin (despite it being proven to be one of the safest drugs available and demonstrating success in dozens of trials for COVID itself (then dozens, now 256 in total) and through real-world usage in Peru, Brazil, Paraguay and others). They went so far as to rig trials (using real patients while doing so) to help craft an anti-Ivermectin narrative (something they were later forced to make a U-turn on, via court order).

 

• 24. We already knew that their narrative made no sense. They issues policies that were entirely ridiculous (eg. ‘the virus won’t spread in groups of six, but it will pounce if you hang about in groups of seven or more’, ‘no mask is needed if you are sitting down at a pub (safe), but needed to walk to the loo (unsafe)’, etc etc). They rolled out nationwide limitations exercise and sunshine as a ‘public health measure’.

 

• 25. We already knew that all the main players were benefitting from peddling nonsense. It was no secret that the shadow elements of government had begun to see an uncensored internet as a thorn in their side, most obviously after the populism began affecting their plans (see Brexit and the Trump election, 2015-16). It is easy to see why Big Pharma, having now over 20 years without a ‘blockbuster’ drug and found themselves with a broken business model, were so desperate to usher in the mRNA era and the life-sustaining profit that came with it. It’s not hard to see why the billionaire class, aka “the 1%”, were so happy to go along; in 2020, the year that countless businesses were destroyed and the economy was shut down, the total wealth of earth’s billionairses grew by a record $1.9 trillion. But we had seen that the most relevant players here proved to be the Big Banks (including Blackrock etc). Their money comes from trading. This is a business that, by definition, provides no value (ie. the money they make must be taken from elsewhere). They were facing ruin in January 2020 as the US economy failed the inter-bank lending rate shot up to 10%. The Federal Reserve was printing money at the rate of $120bn per day; this sum is unbelievable, and so was the lack of coverage (we can only speculate as to why the government-media complex did not wish to draw any attention to a bailout of such colossal proportions and the impending collapse of the Western economy). The biggest problem was that it wasn’t enough to sustain the system, now mathematically guaranteed to fail without both increasing the money-printing to levels that would replicate the hyperinflation seen in the Weimar Republic (unless such a bailout was conducted in concert with a shutdown of the economy, which would be politically impossible without a pandemic). We already knew that the banks got ended up getting $11.23 trillion, the economy was shut down, and they just about survived. Meanwhile, regardless of how obvious the above sounds when written down, most of the public were so deep in the fear cycles spun by the mainstream media’s round-the-clock messaging that they couldn’t – or wouldn’t – see the outrageous conflicts of interest that the media were failing to report on or consider how, after the movement of advertising venue to new media had destroyed the traditional business model and resulted in corporate capture in a ‘headlines-for-cash’ model. The Guardian, the newspaper that obnoxiously claim to ‘be reader-funded’, accept millions of pounds each year from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2020, this totalled £3.5m (although their total outlay on buying the news exceeds $300m). That being said, the Government funded the media to the tune of more than £184m during 2020 alone.

Summary: At every single juncture, they got it wrong. Every single step of the way. At every single opportunity, they censored opposing ideas. And it ‘coincidentally’ turned out that every single bad decision happed to work in their interests.

 

What We Already Knew… About The Science™ Being Pushed

• 26. We already knew that caseloads could be manufactured at any place at any time, simply by a simple change in testing procedure. PCR tests were, at best, flawed, but mainly fraudulent. As repeatedly pointed out before and during the emergency measures, the key to using PCR testing is the cycle threshold used (how many ‘photocopies’ made of the genetic material) with studies from 2020 showing how the results quickly become useless above 24x; the NHS and CDC defaulted to the use of PCR at 35x/40x respectively (even though Fauci had acknowledged the bogus nature of this in summer 2020). Later in 2021, the CDC would get caught out lowering the cycle threshold in an attempt to hide the early ‘breakthrough cases’ in the vaccinated before finally admitting they’d been ‘overenthusiastic’ with their claims, as discussed above).

 

• 27. We already knew that The Science™ was not supported by scientific evidence. Despite the emphatic claims claiming that taking the vaccine would make someone a ‘dead end for the virus’, we knew nothing about whether these novel products could prevent transmission. This is not because of some nuances with the methodology or the end points used by Pfizer and Co in their original trials. It’s not that their assessment on transmission was flawed. They just never even bothered assessing for this.

 

• 28. We knew that, despite the whitewashing provided by the authors, the actual data from the original Pfizer trial did not support the idea of safe or effective. And, aside from all the unexplained inconsistencies, showed a spike in infections shortly after each dose was provided (for the vaccinated arm, 55.6% of all cases cases occurred in these windows). And that the first ‘real life’ Israeli study, used to declare the vaccines ‘effective’, showed nothing of the sort. In one of the most absurd ‘studies’ ever undertaken, ‘scientists’ watched on as swathes of their subjects took a novel treatment then quickly succumb to the very disease they were apparently being protected from. Their response? Use the participants as their own controls, allowing them to ‘find’ that ‘the rates of illness are much lower… than the rates of illness during the initial spike in illness!’. They found that rates of illness increases on days 1-12 before returning to a more normal range on days 13-24. See the graphs that imply a beneficial effect, but are actually comparing the same people to themselves (fig 2). This is where the you’re-not-actually-classified-as-vaccinated-until-after-you’ve-made-it-through-the-21-days-where-you’re-at-higher-risk policy originated. Yes, a crime against mathematics, logic and common sense, but the only way to hold up a narrative that was shaky from the get go.

 

• 29. We already knew the CDC were fudging data. It came out in April 2021 that the CDC were recommending to labs that ‘breakthrough’ cases in the vaccinated be tested at a lower cycle threshold that the threshold they’d been using for the non-vaccinated, in an attempt to hide the number of cases occurring in the vaccinated (yes, this was in those bizarre days – 5-6 episodes of COVID ago for many – when the CDC was still clinging to the idea that the vaccinated couldn’t get infected).

 

• 30. We already knew that the authorities were biased against any non-vaccine treatment. The claims made by authorities about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin – that they were ineffective for this ‘novel’ virus – were built on such flimsy logic and corrupt trials (that needed to be quickly retracted when observers pointed out that the data was not just made up, but would have been impossible to attain).

 

As if this wasn’t enough, we still had the experimental country, Israel, where we could see that a clear spike in infections/deaths after rollout. We had countless warnings from whistleblowers within the medical establishment, making it clear to anyone who had any passing interest in the truth that, at a minimum, we should be asking questions. And the evidence was everywhere; as an example, frontline workers knew what was happening as early as February 2021, with evidence from FOI requests that vaccination clinics felt to need to have ambulances ‘on standby’.

 

Summary

The 30 points made above paint a clear picture of what we already knew in the spring of 2021. Each point individually counters the narrative that was being spun at time. Collectively, it they leave it in ruins.

But, while this emphatically demonstrates that there was never any doubt that the narrative was ridiculous and it is clear that now is the best opportunity in a long time to have fruitful dialogue with those who have previously tried to avoid it, we should bear in mind it is only human nature that those we are trying to engage with have conflict between wanting to understand what actually went down and wanting to cling to the narrative that previously protected us from discomfort (and, let’s face it, billions of pounds was spent to exploit this in the most advanced, well-funded PR campaign of all time).

It’s also inevitable that many are not yet ready to listen and tragic that some may never be ready. Perhaps we can find some compassion for this group, while of course remaining a healthy suspicion. But, for the rest, this is what happened, here’s the questions we asked at the time, and here’s the questions we should ask next time.

I predict that we will not need to wait long for this. I also predict that we will see more familiar faces join the growing gallery of those who were ‘providing the best advice at the time’. Each time they do, I invite you to consider if they really believed this was the case (in which case, do they acknowledge that this was not actually the case and that actively chose to put their audience at risk and dehumanize a section of the population rather than do 20 minutes of their own research) or if they were simply lying because it was in their own best interests?