by PAUL COLLITS – IT CAME to light this week that Queensland Health, presumably with the blessing of the truly evil Queensland Government, is sacking nurses who refused to take ineffective and sometimes lethal pandemic shots.
Initially the nurses were stood down. Now, they are being dismissed.
Two points can be made on this. First, it is only Sky News that seems to have noticed. The rest of the paid-for media stayed silent.
And second, Sky being a Murdoch vehicle, didn’t question the core issue – that unsafe, unnecessary, in effective vaccines should never have been allowed in the first place, let alone mandated for anyone. No, Sky kept to the standard “hypocrisy” line.
This is a problem because the Queensland Government ended the mandates for health workers last September. Nothing more to be seen here. Stupid, not evil. “Ridiculous” was the word used.
Any investigative journalist worth his or her salt might have taken this latest outrage as a teaching moment.
He or she might have brought up unexplained global excess deaths. Or Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome (SADS). Or TV hosts and athletes dropping dead in the studio or on the pitch. Or the cover-ups by the State and its many acolytes over these issues.
These deaths and injuries continue apace. Not only that, but governments here and internationally continue to spruik the jabs.
Few of them now risk mandates, since the knowledge of widespread vaccine harms is now embedded in a sufficiently large segment of the (dwindling) population as to make such a course politically risky. And we know that is all they care about.
(We didn’t need foolish Mike Baird to point it out.)
The question is raised, what should the COVID-awake do to further the cause of truth-seeking in relation to vaccine deaths and injuries.
One response is to calculate deaths from the jab, to raise awareness of the sheer extent and lethality of the harms. US biologist Bret Weinstein has done this, most recently.
There are several ways to calculate the quantum of vaccine harms. Apart from adding up the huge (endless, really) amount of anecdotal evidence of people keeling over after their shots.
One is to study autopsies to determine whether deaths following vaccines are matters of cause and effect and not merely correlation. Then to determine the numbers of unexplained, “excess” deaths in any jurisdiction and apply to that number the percentage of deaths from the autopsy study that could be ascribed to the shot.
One such study found that three-quarters of deaths following vaccines were caused by the vaccines.
Another approach is to use published data from agencies like Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US, which records self-reported vaccine harms, to calculate proportions at scale.
All of these methods have their shortcomings, as readers of Paul’s Newsletter on Substack have pointed out, quite correctly.
Though not on the scale of the shortcomings of the modelling done in 2020 that convinced governments everywhere that there was a “crisis”.
Imperial College London should be sued for global damages and its chief “scholars” sent to prison. See under Professor Pantsdown, aka Neil Ferguson.
These “errors” of modelling were out by orders of magnitude, and caused massive harm. Harm that was lethal, and spread across the public health, economic, governance and social realms.
One of the shortcomings of attempts to calculate vaccine deaths and injuries has nothing to do with methodology.
It is simply the result of poor raw data, and this is due to the deliberate, self-serving efforts of governments and their health institutions in refusing to acknowledge even the slightest problem with the jabs, and so themselves investigate jab harm.
Instead, this should be their highest calling, as it should also be of doctors, their professional and regulatory bodies, of journalists and the media, and of academics.
Alas, all of these institutions have been bought up by Pharma, and hence they hide data, fail to release it publicly, stop real scientists from getting anywhere near it, and, in some cases, simply do not collect it (at least not properly).
This has been pointed out in relation to Australia’s own Therapeutic Goods Administration by Dystopian Down Under (Rebekah Barnett). The strategy is resist, resist, resist. Deny, deny, deny. Hide, hide, hide.
So, it has been left to maverick researchers working with poor and hidden data to unearth relationships of cause and effect and, using the tools at their disposal, to calculate overall harm.
One of the fruits of their endeavours is detailed here.
Their task is noble and to be encouraged. Their work is real science, formulating and testing hypotheses against real-world evidence. Ground-truthing and triangulating (that is, using more than one research methodology to reach conclusions), where possible.
Where they cannot do this, they should still try. And just as researchers like Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, Harvey Risch, Denis Rancourt and Peter McCullough, submit their findings to both their peers and to the court of public opinion.
It was a study by Rancourt and colleagues that came up with the 17 million number, as US research scientist Judy Mikovits has noted: “The researchers found the fatal toxicity was one death per 800 doses across all ages and countries. When you scale up to billions [of doses], it’s not hard to reach a number like that 17 million with a technology that’s dangerous.”
Their shocking study, COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere, was published September 17, 2023, and, rather than garnering worldwide attention, has met only censorship and narrative-confirming “fact-checks” on the safety and effectiveness of the as-yet untested “vaccines”.
A presentation by Rancourt on his study can be found here, along with those of other vaccine exposing heroes, including Bret Weinstein.
UK pharmacologist Mike Yeadon is cautious. He describes the statement of the 17 million number as “extraordinary”. The jury is out.
Another study in 2023, in which Rancourt also participated, got to 13 million. As in, “could be related to 13 million deaths”. This is suitably cautious.
All the while, these independent scholars know that they will be lied about, pilloried, described as nutters and conspiracy theorists, just like they (and we) were during the plandemic. By all of the bought-up, usual suspects. They know who they are.
But as with all science, the work of the truth tellers and their methods should (must) be questioned and challenged, where appropriate. In spite of the fact that the efforts of their opponents (and mortal enemies) will not be challenged.
The playing field is, indeed, anything but level. The formal institutions of learning and investigation, being bought up, are running dead on the issue of COVID policy.
This is the most shameful betrayal of truth-telling in my life time, ironically done at a time when a version of, and an appeal to, truth-telling is suddenly trendy in other areas.
The questioning is important for two reasons. One, to keep science, now moribund, alive and capable of a full recovery. Capable of re-discovering its robustness and value to society.
Two, we have to question the work of those on our own side because we want our findings to be right and, therefore, to be widely accepted without any chance of serious rebuttal. Despite the earnest and indefatigable efforts of the fact-checker industrial complex, strategically deployed by the liar-class.
It is a war and, yes, while all things are in play in war, real scientists do want to win on merit as well as on the scoreboard.
There is also an argument for being very conservative in one’s conclusions. It should not, other things being equal, require shock-horror level data to convince well-meaning citizens (those between the active conformists and the active dissidents) of the need to pressure governments and health authorities to pull the shots off the market.
As Rebekah Barnett says, “vaccines have been pulled from the market for far less than this”.
Sadly, not all things are equal. The governments and health authorities of which we speak are infected with scumbags (as David Warner’s father might say). Scumbags, crooks, charlatans and chancers who took up the reins of power very briefly, which resulted in mayhem and death on their watch.
Like Margaret Thatcher (in very different circumstances), they’re “no for turning”.
Which leads us to the counter-argument, that because things are not equal, the independent researchers seeking to highlight vaccine harms should use their own “bag of tricks”, as Weinstein described Pharma’s routine methods, and not over-think the need for robust conservatism.
After all, they are largely flying blind and operating with, at best, nil cooperation from the authorities and, at worst, with massive opposition and obfuscation, and with scant data. And it isn’t as if the dissidents aren’t already treated with anything other than contempt. What’s to lose, you might well conclude.
Seventeen million dead might be wrong. It may well be exaggerated. Probably not by orders of magnitude, though.
As Vigilant Fox notes: “First, it was a conspiracy theory that there would be vaccine mandates. It was also a conspiracy theory that the shots didn’t stop transmission. Booster shots, also once a conspiracy theory, came after waning efficacy. And it turns out that people who took the most shots had the most COVID. Now, it’s a conspiracy theory that the shots are responsible for 17 million deaths worldwide. Will that eventually prove to be true?”
And going big may serve life-affirming, indeed, life-saving purposes. That would be noble cause corruption. This is a war, after all. And Queensland nurses are still being sacked for refusing the lethal jab.
Oh, there is one more point.
One thing we know and most with a semblance of knowledge of these things will accept is that the harms caused by the jab are only just beginning.
One of the many things not tested during the vaccine trials was their long-term effects. How could they have been?
They were given emergency use authorisation within nano-seconds of the shoddy trials. So, it was literally impossible for anyone to say that there were no long-term adverse impacts. They simply couldn’t know.
What Bret Weinsten convincingly demonstrated in a recent Tucker Carlson interview was that the very nature of the “transfection” trick embedded in the mRNA jabs was that the vaccine would not stay in the area of injection, but would travel to cells all over the body, join with those cells and cause damage to those cells.
Like those in the heart and the ovaries. And the damage would be felt differently according to the health of those cells, and might not appear instantly but rather accrue only over time in the case of many now-healthy people.
So, 17 million might only be the tip of the long-term iceberg. To mix metaphors, a smoking gun. We shall see.PC