An LNP & mRNA

DOSING
EXPERIMENT
To Understand
How To Murder & Maim
FOR THE NEXT
PANDEMIC

the
injection
IS The
Bioweapon
Fully Referenced & Fact Checked

a jeff prager publication ©2023

 herein
lies the proof

There Was
NO
Pandemic!
 This book will be available as a
PDF with working hyperlinks and
hyperlinked references until July
15th, 2023, when it will disappear
from my web site and only be
available as a paperback or eBook
on Amazon. If I weren’t dying from
Stage 4 Metastatic Lung Cancer it
would always be free. All the rest
of my books will always be free at:

https://independent.academia.edu/Prager
 RESEARCH LETTER

Open Access

Batch-dependent safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

Max Schmeling: Innometric, Skorping, Denmark

Vibeke Manniche: LIVA, Copenhagen, Denmark
Peter Riis Hansen: Department of Cardiology, Kobenhavns, Universitet, Denmark

First published: 30 March 2023

https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13998
Correction added on 13 April 2023, after first online publication:
The corresponding author’s affiliation was updated in this version

To the Editor,

Vaccination has been widely implemented for mitigation of coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19),
and by 11 November 2022, 701 million doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech)
had been administered and linked with 971,021 reports of suspected adverse effects (SAEs) in
the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA).1 Vaccine vials with individual doses
are supplied in batches with stringent quality control to ensure batch and dose uniformity.2
Clinical data on individual vaccine batch levels have not been reported and batch-dependent
variation in the clinical efficacy and safety of authorized vaccines would appear to be highly
unlikely. However, not least in view of the emergency use market authorization and rapid im-
plementation of large-scale vaccination programs, the possibility of batch-dependent varia-
tion appears worthy of investigation. We therefore examined rates of SAEs between different
BNT162b2 vaccine batches administered in Denmark (population 5.8 million) from 27 Decem-
ber 2020 to 11 January 2022.

Data on all SAE cases with corresponding vaccine batch labels reported to the Danish Med-
ical Agency (DKMA) and classified by the DKMA according to SAE seriousness, and numbers
of BNT162b2 doses in individual vaccine batches registered by the Danish Serum Institute, re-
spectively, are publicly available and were retrieved upon request. The DKMA-managed spon-
taneous SAE reporting system accepts reports of SAEs from any source, for example healthcare
providers, patients and other members of the public. SAEs are assigned Medical Dictionary for
Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms that do not necessarily correspond to verified medical
diagnoses, and more than 1 SAE may be assigned to a report. SAE seriousness was classified
as non-serious, serious (hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, life-threat-
ening illness, permanent disability or congenital malformation) or SAE-related death respec-
tively. The study relied exclusively on the secondary use of these anonymized data and was
thus exempt from research ethics board review. SAEs were counted on a batch level by linking
individual SAEs to the batch label(s) of BNT162b dose(s) that the subject had received. The total
number of SAEs associated with each batch was divided by the number of doses in the batch
to obtain the rate of SAEs per 1000 doses. Since the observed relationship between the num-
bers of SAEs and BNT162b2 vaccine doses was highly heterogeneous, conventional regression
statistics were not considered to be applicable. Therefore, heterogeneity in the relationship
between the numbers of SAEs and doses per vaccine batch was assessed by log-transformation
followed by non-hierarchical cluster analysis and general linear model (GLM) test for differences
in SAE rates between batches. Reporting of the study conforms to broad EQUATOR guidelines.3

A total of 10,793,766 doses were administered to 4,026,575 persons with the use of 52 different
BNT162b2 vaccine batches (2340–814,320 doses per batch) and 43,496 SAEs were registered
in 13,635 persons, equaling 3.19 +/- 0.03 (mean +/- SEM) SAEs per person. [Correction added
on 09 June 2023, after first online publication: The total number of doses and patient counts
were corrected in the preceding statement]. In each person, individual SAEs were associated
with vaccine doses from 1.531 +/- 0.004 batches resulting in a total of 66,587 SAEs distributed
between the 52 batches. Batch labels were incompletely registered or missing for 7.11% of
SAEs, leaving 61,847 batch-identifiable SAEs for further analysis of which 14,509 (23.5%) were
classified as severe SAEs and 579 (0.9%) were SAE-related deaths. Unexpectedly, rates of SAEs
per 1000 doses varied considerably between vaccine batches with 2.32 (0.09–3.59) (median [in-
terquartile range]) SAEs per 1000 doses, and significant heterogeneity (p < .0001) was observed
in the relationship between numbers of SAEs per 1000 doses and numbers of doses in the indi-
vidual batches. Three predominant trendlines were discerned, with noticeable lower SAE rates
in larger vaccine batches and additional batch-dependent heterogeneity in the distribution of
SAE seriousness between the batches representing the three trendlines (Figure 1). Compared
to the rates of all SAEs, serious SAEs and SAE-related deaths per 1.000 doses were much less
frequent and numbers of these SAEs per 1000 doses displayed considerably greater variability
between batches, with lesser separation between the three trendlines (not shown).

The observed variation in SAE rates and seriousness between BTN162b2 vaccine batches in this
nationwide study was contrary to the expected homogenous rate and distribution of SAEs be-
tween batches. In Denmark and other EU/EEA countries, vaccine quality is monitored according
to Official Control Authority Batch Release (OCABR) guidelines and to our knowledge, potential
differences in BNT162b2 vaccine batch clinical safety or effectiveness have not been reported
previously, for example in pre-authorization trials and subsequent population-based studies.4,
5 Such effects may be easier to detect in small countries like Denmark where BNT162b2 vac-
cines during the study period were generally provided in several smaller batches. Also, reg-
ulatory monitoring and scientific interest in COVID-19 vaccine safety have primarily focused
on serious adverse events, for example myocarditis.6 In any case, identification of such effects
evidently requires that observed adverse events are linked with the respective individual batch
labels and sizes (dose numbers). Previously, variation in the production (culture growth) of the
Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine has been shown to influence important immunological effects
of this vaccine,7 and two cases of myocarditis have been reported in two young males after
receiving mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna) from the same vaccine batch on the same
day.8 Indeed, variations (batch-to-batch, vial-to-vial and even dose-to-dose) in vaccines may
occur as a result of variabilities and practice breaches in, for example vaccine manufacturing,
storage, transportation, clinical handling and control aspects, and in 2021, three lots of the
mRNA1273 vaccine totalling more than 1.6 million doses were recalled in Japan after 39 vials
of the vaccine were found to contain foreign materials.9 Leaked and contested data have also
suggested that some early commercial batches of the BNT162b2 vaccine contained lower than
expected levels of intact mRNA.10

FIGURE 1

Numbers of suspected adverse events (SAEs) after BNT612b2 mRNA vaccination in Denmark
(27 December 2020–11 January 2022) according to the number of doses per vaccine batch.
Each dot represents a single vaccine batch. Trendlines are linear regression lines. Blue: R2 = 0.78,
ß= 0.0898 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0514–0.1281), green: R2 = 0.89, ß= 0.0025 (95% CI
0.0021–0.0029), yellow: R2 = 0.68, ß= 0.000087 (95% CI 0.000056–0.000118). Vaccine batches
representing the blue, green and yellow trendlines comprised 4.22%, 63.69% and 32.09% of all
vaccine doses, respectively, with 70.78%, 27.49% and 47.15% (blue trendline), 28.84%, 71.50%
and 51.99% (green trendline), and 0.38%, 1.01%, and 0.86% (yellow trendline) of all SAEs, seri-
ous SAEs, and SAE-related deaths, respectively.

The present preliminary findings must be interpreted in the light of several limitations. The
DKMA-managed spontaneous SAE reporting system in Denmark is a passive surveillance sys-
tem akin to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US, and reports from
these systems are subject to reporting biases, with potential for both under- and over-report-
ing, as well as incomplete data and variable quality of the reported information.11, 12 Owing
to these inherent limitations, signals detected by these systems must be considered to be hy-
pothesis-generating and generally cannot be used to establish causality.11-14 In addition, in
the present study, the SAE case history of prior COVID-19 was unknown, and specific SAE types
(MedDRA system organ class etc.), demographics of SAE cases, relationships of SAEs with con-
secutive vaccine doses in individuals cases, temporal trends in the observed batch-dependen-
cy of SAEs, and batch-dependent effects on vaccine effectiveness, respectively, were not exam-
ined. Notably, to our knowledge, the Danish Serum Institute has not issued recalls of BNT162b2
vaccine batches. In conclusion, the results suggest the existence of a batch-dependent safety
signal for the BNT162b2 vaccine, and more studies are warranted to explore this preliminary
observation and its consequences.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT: NONE

SOURCE: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13998

REFERENCES

1. European Medical Agency. Safety of Covid-19 vaccines. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/

human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treat-
ments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/safety-covid-19-vaccines Accessed January 6, 2023.

2. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare. EDQM initiatives in the
context of COVID-19 vaccines and therapies. https://www.edqm.eu/en/edqm-initiatives-in-
the-context-of-covid-19-vaccines-and-therapies Accessed January 6, 2023.

3. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Alman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health
research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40: 35- 53.

4. Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19
vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383: 2603- 2615.

5. Barda N, Dagan N, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine in a
nationwide setting. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385: 1078- 1090.

6. Karlstad Ø, Hovi P, Husby A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and myocarditis in a Nordic cohort
study of 23 million residents. JAMA Cardiol. 2022; 7: 600- 612.

7. Biering-Sørensen S, Jensen KJ, Aamand SH, et al. Variation of growth in the production of the
BCG vaccine and the association with the immune response. An observational study within a
randomised trial. Vaccine. 2015; 33: 2056- 2065.

8. Sciaccaluga C, D’Ascenzi F, Cameli M, et al. Case report: two case reports of acute myopericar-
ditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 7(9):827237.

9. Bruce YY, Taraban MB, Briggs KT. All vials are not the same: potential role of vaccine quality in
vaccine adverse reactions. Vaccine. 2021; 39: 6565- 6569.

10. Tinari S. The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability. BMJ. 2021
Mar; 10(372):n627.
11. Aagaard L, Stenver DI, Hansen EH. Structures and processes in spontaneous ADR reporting
systems: a comparative study of Australia and Denmark. Pharm World Sci. 2008; 30: 563- 570.

12. Shimabukuro TT, Nguyen M, Martin D, DeStefano F. Safety monitoring in the vaccine ad-
verse event reporting system (VAERS). Vaccine. 2015; 33: 4398- 4405.

13. Oster ME, Shay DK, Su JR, et al. Myocarditis cases reported after mRNA-based COVID-19 vac-
cination in the US from December 2020 to august 2021. JAMA. 2022; 327: 331- 340.

14. Hause AM, Shay DK, Klein NP, et al. Safety of COVID-19 vaccination in United States children
ages 5 to 11 years. Pediatrics. 2022; 150(2):e2022057313.

Pfizer Vaccine Batches in the EU Were Placebos, Say Scientists

Scientists have uncovered startling evidence that a substantial portion of the batches of the
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine deployed in the European Union may in fact have consisted
of placebos – and that the German regulator knew this and did not subject them to quali-
ty-control testing.

The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum,
and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a
group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the
quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a
half.

They recently appeared on the Punkt.Preradovic.com online programme of the German jour-
nalist Milena Preradovic to discuss batch variability. Their starting point was the recent Danish
study showing enormous variation in the adverse events associated with different batches of
the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or BNT162b2 per its scientific codename. The below figure from
the Danish study illustrates this variation.

It shows that the batches used in Denmark, which are represented by the points in the graph,
essentially break down into three groups.

The ‘green batches’ clustered around the green line have a moderate or moderately-high level
of adverse events associated with them. In the discussion with Preradovic, Gerald Dyker takes
the example of the green point furthest to the right.

As he explains, it represents the batch that was the used the most in Denmark, with somewhat
over 800,000 doses having been administered. These 800,000 doses are associated with around
2,000 suspected adverse events, which gives a reporting rate of one suspected adverse event
per approximately 400 doses. As Dyker puts it, “That’s not a small amount if we compare to
what we know otherwise from influenza vaccines.” According to Dyker’s calculation, the green
batches account for more than 60% of the Danish sample.

There are then the ‘blue batches’ clustered around the blue line, which are obviously associated
with an extraordinarily high level of adverse events. As Dyker notes, no more than 80,000 doses
of any of the blue batches were administered in Denmark – suggesting that these especially
bad batches may perhaps have been quietly pulled from the market by public health authori-
ties.
Nonetheless, these batches had as many as 8,000 suspected adverse events associated with
them. Eight thousand out of 80,000 doses would give a reporting rate of one suspected adverse
event for every 10 doses – and Dyker notes that some of the blue batches are indeed associated
with a reporting rate of as high as one suspected adverse event for every six doses!

On Dyker’s calculation, the blue batches represent less than 5% of the total number of doses in-
cluded in the Danish study. Nonetheless, they are associated with nearly 50% of the 579 deaths
recorded in the sample.

Finally, we have the ‘yellow batches’ clustered around the yellow line, which, as can be seen
above, barely gets off the x-axis. On Dyker’s calculation, the yellow batches represent around
30% of the total. Dyker notes that they include batches comprising some 200,000 administered
doses which are associated with literally zero suspected adverse events.

As Dyker puts it, “malicious” observers might note that “this is how placebos would look”.

And malicious observers might be right. For Dyker and Matysik compared the batch numbers
contained in the Danish study with publicly available information on the batches approved for
release, and they made the startling discovery that almost none of the harmless batches, un-
like the very-bad and not-so-bad batches, appear to have been subject to any quality-control
testing at all. Unbeknownst to most observers, it is precisely the German regulatory agency, the
Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), which is, in principle, responsible for quality control of all the Pfiz-
er-BioNTech vaccine supply in the EU. (The institute is named after the German immunologist
and Nobel Prize winner Paul Ehrlich, not, of course, the Stanford biology professor of the same
name.)

This reflects the fact that the actual legal manufacturer of the vaccine, as well as the marketing
authorisation holder in the EU, is the German company BioNTech, not its more well-known
American partner Pfizer.

Dyker and Matysik found that the PEI had tested and approved for release all the very bad ‘blue’
batches, the overwhelming majority of the not-so-bad ‘green’ batches, but almost none of the
harmless ‘yellow’ batches – as if the PEI knew in advance that these batches were unproblem-
atic.

This is shown in the below slide from Dyker’s presentation during the Punkt.Preradovic inter-
view. The title reads: ‘Which batches from the Danish study did the Paul Ehrlich Institute test
and approve for release?’

In the PEI column of each of the tables, “ja” means, of course, that the batch was tested, “nein”
means that it was not. Note that only the first batch in the ‘yellow’ table was tested [see graph
on next page].
The caption under the yellow table reads: “The PEI did not generally regard testing of the harm-
less ‘yellow batches’ as necessary.”

As Dyker put it, with notable restraint, “this would support the initial suspicion that they are
maybe in fact something like placebos”.

Or, in short, to paraphrase the German scientists’ findings on the variability of the Pfizer-BioN-
Tech batches, it would appear that the good was bad, the bad was very bad, and the very good
was saline solution.

(The full Punkt.Preradovic interview with Gerald Dyker and Jörg Matysik is available here in Ger-
man. The above translations are by your writer. A full, presumably machine-translated, English
version of the interview is also available on the Punkt.Preradovic webpage.)

Robert Kogon is a pen name for a widely-published financial journalist, translator and research-
er working in Europe. Subscribe to his Substack and follow him on Twitter.

Stop Press: Geoff Pain on Substack has suggested there may be an innocent explanation for
these strange data linked to the fact that the adverse event reports the scientists looked at were
only from Denmark but the batches were distributed across the world, where some adverse
events (including deaths) were reported. It’s still not clear though why the zero-adverse-event
lots would line up nearly perfectly with the ones not tested by the German regulator.

SOURCE: https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/
 From Plymouth State University and Rhode Island College
published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
the authors examined Southern African countries
that had almost zero covid deaths with a 6% vaccination rate

They concluded that:

1. Mass administration of ivermectin is associated with lower COVID-19 incidence.

2. Ivermectin has been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro.

3. vermectin may have a prophylactic effect against COVID-19.

4. Ivermectin is routinely given to every US citizen that flies to South Africa and other southern
African countries and still is.

They further state:

“Here, we show that countries with routine mass drug administration of prophylactic chemo-
therapy including ivermectin have a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19. Prophylactic
use of ivermectin against parasitic infections is most common in Africa and we hence show that
the reported correlation is highly significant both when compared among African nations as
well as in a worldwide context. We surmise that this may be connected to ivermectin’s ability
to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, which likely leads to lower infection rates. However, other
pathways must exist to explain the persistence of such an inhibitory effect after serum levels
of ivermectin have declined. It is suggested that ivermectin be evaluated for potential off-label
prophylactic use in certain cases to help bridge the time until a safe and effective vaccine be-
comes available.”

SOURCE: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304684
 From the World Health Organization:

“Covid-19 vaccination can induce multiple sclerosis via cross-reactive CD4+ T cells recognizing
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and myelin peptides.”

SOURCE:
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/
covidwho-2138820?lang=en

AND/OR

https://twitter.com/emalinedelapaix/status/1663310829322661888
This is radical but supported 100% by numerous scientists, as referenced herein, with the nec-
essary qualifications such as Dr. Mike Yeadon—a Pfizer VP of Respiratory Diseases for 16 years
supervising 200 people world-wide—who left Pfizer on great terms and went on to start his
own biotech company with a loan from Pfizer and using Pfizer products that had not been fully
developed yet. He went on to develop new drugs and sold Ziarco for several million dollars to
Novartis. After almost 3 years of research with a team of scientists, which he certainly has the
credentials to perform, he now believes there was no pandemic and the injection was a dosing
experiment with a deadly bioweapon.

There Was No Pandemic

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

June 22, 2023

https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=130

The essay is based on my May 17, 2023 testimony for the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) in Ot-
tawa, Canada, my 894-page book of exhibits in support of that testimony, and our continued
research.

I am an accomplished interdisciplinary scientist and physicist, and a former tenured Full Profes-
sor of physics and lead scientist, originally at the University of Ottawa.

I have written over 30 scientific reports relevant to COVID, starting April 18, 2020 for the On-
tario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca/covid), and recently for a new non-profit corporation
(correlation-canada.org/research). Presently, all my work and interviews about COVID are doc-
umented on my website created to circumvent the barrage of censorship (denisrancourt.ca).
In addition to critical reviews of published science, the main data that my collaborators and I
analyse is all-cause mortality.

All-cause mortality by time (day, week, month, year, period), by jurisdiction (country, state,
province, county), and by individual characteristics of the deceased (age, sex, race, living acco-
modations) is the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events
causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths
from any cause.

Such data is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death. We
have used it to detect and characterize seasonality, heat waves, earthquakes, economic collaps-
es, wars, population aging, long-term societal development, and societal assaults such as those
occurring in the COVID period, in many countries around the world, and over recent history,
1900-present.

Interestingly, none of the post-second-world-war Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Preven-

tion- promoted (CDC-promoted) viral respiratory disease pandemics (1957-58, “H2N2”; 1968,
“H3N2”; 2009, “H1N1 again”) can be detected in the all-cause mortality of any country. Unlike
all the other causes of death that are known to affect mortality, these so-called pandemics did
not cause any detectable increase in mortality, anywhere.

The large 1918 mortality event, which was recruited to be a textbook viral respiratory disease
pandemic (“H1N1”), occurred prior to the inventions of antibiotics and the electron microscope,
under horrific post-war public-sanitation and economic-stress conditions. The 1918 deaths
have been proven by histopathology of preserved lung tissue to have been caused by bacterial
pneumonia. This is shown in several independent and non-contested published studies.

My first report analysing all-cause mortality was published on June 2, 2020, at censorship-prone
Research Gate, and was entitled “All-cause mortality during COVID-19 - No plague and a likely
signature of mass homicide by government response”. It showed that hot spots of sudden surg-
es in all-cause mortality occurred only in specific locations in the Northern-hemisphere West-
ern World, which were synchronous with the March 11, 2020 declaration of a pandemic. Such
synchronicity is impossible within the presumed framework of a spreading viral respiratory dis-
ease, with or without airplanes, because the calculated time from seeding to mortality surge is
highly dependent on local societal circumstances, by several months to years. I attributed the
excess deaths to aggressive measures and hospital treatment protocols known to have been
applied suddenly at that time in those localities.

The work was pursued in greater depth with collaborators for several years and continues. We
have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and
inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport. It also
never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on
vulnerable groups within the domestic population.

Here are my conclusions, from our detailed studies of all-cause mortality in the COVID period,
in combination with socio-economic and vaccine-rollout data:

1. If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical
establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any
excess mortality.

2. There was no pandemic causing excess mortality.

3. Measures caused excess mortality.

4. COVID-19 vaccination caused excess mortality.

Regarding the vaccines, we quantified many instances in which a rapid rollout of a dose in the
imposed vaccine schedule was synchronous with an otherwise unexpected peak in all-cause
mortality, at times in the seasonal cycle and of magnitudes that have not previously been seen
in the historic record of mortality.

In this way, we showed that the vaccination campaign in India caused the deaths of 3.7 million
fragile residents. In Western countries, we quantified the average all-ages rate of death to be 1
death for every 2000 injections, to increase exponentially with age (doubling every additional 5
years of age), and to be as large as 1 death for every 100 injections for those 80 years and older.
We estimated that the vaccines had killed 13 million worldwide.
If one accepts my above-numbered conclusions, and the analyses that we have performed,
then there are several implications about how one perceives reality regarding what actually did
and did not occur.

First, whereas epidemics of fatal infections are very real in care homes, in hospitals, and with de-
generate living conditions, the viral respiratory pandemic risk promoted by the USA-led “pan-
demic response” industry is not a thing. It is most likely fabricated and maintained for ulterior
motives, other than saving humanity.

Second, in addition to natural events (heat waves, earthquakes, extended large-scale droughts),
significant events that negatively affect mortality are large assaults against domestic popula-
tions, affecting vulnerable residents, such as:

• sudden devastating economic deterioration (the Great Depression, the dust bowl, the disso-
lution of the Soviet Union),

• war (including social-class restructuring),

• imperial or economic occupation and exploitation (including large-scale exploitative land

use), and

• the well-documented measures and destruction applied during the COVID period.

Otherwise, in a stable society, mortality is extremely robust and is not subject to large rapid
changes. There is no empirical evidence that large changes in mortality can be induced by sud-
den appearances of new pathogens. In the contemporary era of the dominant human species,
humanity is its worst enemy, not nature.

Third, coercive measures imposed to reduce the risk of transmission (such as distancing, direc-
tion arrows, lockdown, isolation, quarantine, Plexiglas barriers, face shields and face masks, el-
bow bumps, etc.) are palpably unscientific; and the underlying concern itself regarding “spread”
was not ever warranted and is irrational, since there is no evidence in reliable mortality data
that there ever was a particularly virulent pathogen.

In fact, the very notion of “spread” during the COVID period is rigorously disproved by the tem-
poral and spatial variations of excess all-cause mortality, everywhere that it is sufficiently quan-
tified, worldwide. For example, the presumed virus that killed 1.3 million poor and disabled
residents of the USA did not cross the more-than-thousand-kilometer land border with Can-
ada, despite continuous and intense economic exchanges. Likewise, the presumed virus that
caused synchronous mortality hotspots in March-April-May 2020 (such as in New York, Madrid
region, London, Stockholm, and northern Italy) did not spread beyond those hotspots.
Interestingly, in this regard, the historical seasonal variations (12 month period) in all-cause
mortality, known for more than 100 years, are inverted in the northern and southern global
hemispheres, and show no evidence of “spread” whatsoever.

Instead, these patterns, in a given hemisphere, show synchronous increases and decreases of
mortality across the entire hemisphere. Would the “spreading” causal agent(s) always take ex-
actly 6 months to cross into the other hemisphere, where it again causes mortality changes that
are synchronous across the hemisphere? Many epidemiologists have long-ago concluded that
person-to-person “contact” spreading of respiratory diseases cannot explain and is disproved
by the seasonal patterns of all-cause mortality. Why the CDC et al. are not systematically ridi-
culed in this regard is beyond this scientist’s comprehension.

Instead, outside of extremely poor living conditions, we should look to the body of work pro-
duced by Professor Sheldon Cohen and co-authors (USA) who established that two dominant
factors control whether intentionally challenged college students become infected and the
severity of the respiratory illness when they are infected:

• degree of experienced psychological stress

• degree of social isolation

The negative impact of experienced psychological stress on the immune system is a large cur-
rent and established area of scientific study, dutifully ignored by vaccine interests, and we now
know that the said impact is dramatically larger in elderly individuals, where nutrition (gut bi-
ome ecology) is an important co-factor.

Of course, I do not mean that causal agents do not exist, such as bacteria, which can cause
pneumonia; nor that there are not dangerous environmental concentrations of such causal
agents in proximity to fragile individuals, such as in hospitals and on clinicians’ hands, notori-
ously.

Fourth, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly viru-
lent pathogen causing excess mortality, the debate about gain-of-function research and an
escaped bioweapon is irrelevant.

I do not mean that the Department of Defence (DoD) does not fund gain-of-function and bio-
weapon research (abroad, in particular), I do not mean that there are not many US patents for
genetically modified microbial organisms having potential military applications, and I do not
mean that there have not previously been impactful escapes or releases of bioweapon vectors
and pathogens. For example, the Lyme disease controversy in the USA may be an example of
a bioweapon leak (see Kris Newby’s 2019 book “Bitten: The Secret History of Lyme Disease and
Biological Weapons”).

Generally, for obvious reasons, any pathogen that is extremely virulent will not also be ex-
tremely contagious. There are billions of years of cumulative evolutionary pressures against the
existence of any such pathogen, and that result will be deeply encoded into all lifeforms.
Furthermore, it would be suicidal for any regime to vehemently seek to create such a pathogen.
Bioweapons are intended to be delivered to specific target areas, except in the science fiction
wherein immunity from a bioweapon that is both extremely virulent and extremely contagious
can be reliably delivered to one’s own population and soldiers.

In my view, if anything COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to mas-
sively, and repeatedly, rollout individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever
substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing
complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.
This is the same regime that practices wars of complete nation destruction and societal annihi-
lation, under the cover of spreading democracy and women’s rights. And I do not mean China.

Fifth, again, since our conclusion is that there is no evidence that there was any particularly
virulent pathogen causing excess mortality, there was no need for any special treatment proto-
cols, beyond the usual thoughtful, case-by-case, diagnostics followed by the clinician’s chosen
best approach.

Instead, vicious new protocols killed patients in hotspots that applied those protocols in the
first months of the declared pandemic.

This was followed in many states by imposed coercive societal measures, which were contrary
to individual health: fear, panic, paranoia, induced psychological stress, social isolation, self-
victimization, loss of work and volunteer activity, loss of social status, loss of employment, busi-
ness bankruptcy, loss of usefulness, loss of caretakers, loss of venues and mobility, suppression
of freedom of expression, etc.

Only the professional class did better, comfortably working from home, close to family, while
being catered to by an army of specialised home-delivery services.

Unfortunately, the medical establishment did not limit itself to assaulting and isolating vulner-
able patients in hospitals and care facilities. It also systematically withdrew normal care, and
attacked physicians who refused to do so.

In virtually the entire Western World, antibiotic prescriptions were cut and maintained low by
approximately 50% of the pre-COVID rates. This would have had devastating effects in the USA,
in particular, where:

• the CDC’s own statistics, based on death certificates, has approximately 50% of the million or
so deaths associated with COVID having bacterial pneumonia as a listed comorbidity (there
was a massive epidemic of bacterial pneumonia in the USA, which no one talked about)

• the Southern poor states historically have much higher antibiotic prescription rates (this im-
plies high susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia)