Adjunct Suppressors

The Claremont Institute Editors Have Helped Squelch the Covid-19 Vax-Harm Story

The editors of the two flagship publications of the Claremont Institute have been helping our media and government suppress what ought to have been the top news story and public debate of our time, that about the claims that the harms done by the Covid-19 vaccines have been widespread, indeed, so widespread as to have killed at least 200,000 in the U.S. alone.¹

Because these two platforms are low-circulation media, by any quantitative measure theirs has been a minor role in this suppression.  But it may have been significant in a behind-the-scenes way:  the Institute has a reputation for high principle in conservative circles, and its self-silencing on the harm-claims may have made that of the Republican politicians, nearly all of them, feel within bounds.

I believe it was a role more stumbled into than clearly chosen, and also, given the integrity of the Institute’s leaders, that there is no chance money was used to influence its decisions, as it certainly was in the case of Fox News.²

The publications are the Claremont Review of Books, arguably the best such journal in the English-speaking world, and The American Mind, an excellent “web magazine” that features short pieces as well as a near-weekly editors’ podcast.  Because the trickle of stories claiming widespread harms from the Covid-19 vaxxes became a flood about a year-and-a-half ago on alternative platforms like Substack, I select December 2021 as the beginning-point for considering the case.  From that month through May of this year, The American Mind published 536 pieces total, with most of them, 490, being analyses or editorials anchored in one or more current events.  Only one of these, the March 2022 article “Vaccine Malpractice” by David Gortler (Pharm.D. FCCP), directly addressed the Covid-19 vax-harm claims; two others mentioned the claims in a single sentence.  Yes, around ten stories criticized lockdowns, masking, mandates, or Covid-19 “anti-disinformation” policies—three of the best of these were responses to an excerpt from Aaron Kheriaty’s The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Bio-Security State—but none of them pushed on to the distinct issue of the vax-harms.  And as for the 73 “Roundtable” podcast episodes since December 1, 2021, the vax-harm claims were not once slated as a topic to be discussed, and as far as I am aware, and I’ve listened to around 60% of this material--the topic was spontaneously mentioned only once, and in a miss-it-if-you-blink manner when the editors were discussing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s candidacy.³  As for the Claremont Review of Books (CRB), of its 95 book reviews in this period, and more relevantly, of its 28 essays tied to current events, none addressed the vax-harms claims.⁴      

One out of four-hundred and ninety, zero out of twenty-eight, and maybe twenty seconds out of seventy hours of talk, make it impossible for the Claremont editors to deny that either they had a.) an articulated agreement to avoid publishing all discussion of this issue, or--more likely--b.) a shared half-conscious tendency to avoid such, and one so strong that it required no articulation to do its work.

And the context here is crucial.  For those same last eighteen months have seen many thousands of pieces put out there by those we might call the vax-harm dissidents, most of them experts in medicine, general science, or statistical analysis, again and again presenting strong evidence of widespread harms and deaths.  The most important and convincing of these dissident researchers, in my judgment, have been Peter McCullough, Steve Kirsch, Igor Chudov, John Campbell, Alex Berenson, Jessica Rose, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (the “Darkhorse Podcast”), Sucharit Bhakdi, Arne Burkhardt, “el gato malo,” Naomi Wolf and her research team, Mark Crispin Miller and his, Edward Dowd, Jane Ruby, “Eugyppius,” Tess Laurie, “A Midwestern Doctor,” Sasha Latypova, Ryan Cole, “Totality of Evidence,” and “Margaret Anna Alice.” 

Month after month, they have exposed more and more troubling facts related to the Covid-19 vaxxes:  the spike protein doesn’t stay in the arm,⁵ the VAERS numbers are off-the-charts,⁶ by previous expert calculations of the URF, the VAERS numbers would suggest the actual death rates are 30 to 40 times higher than what it reports,⁷ the range of adverse events is unprecedented,⁸ previously unseen clot-like structures in the cadavers of the vaxxed are being reported by embalmers,⁹ the most sophisticated autopsies done on the cadavers of those who died suspiciously soon after vaccination establish causality in most cases,¹⁰ corruption at Pfizer, in terms of fixing their trials and ignoring clear signals of harm, was extensive,¹¹ rates of harm dramatically differ between batches (suggesting abysmal quality control, or even, plots to experiment upon the population),¹² scientists have serious concerns not only about the effects of spike protein, but also about the lipid nano-particles used in the vaccines,¹³ CDC corruption is revealed to be deep,¹⁴ ditto FDA corruption,¹⁵ a gold-standard Thai study of 500 youths reveals shocking rates of under-the-radar cardiac damage, and other studies show similar results,¹⁶ reports of fertility-diminishing adverse-events are stacking up,¹⁷ rates of cancers, including rapidly-developing ones, have jumped up,¹⁸ surveys asking “do you know anyone who?” -type questions support what we might call the “medium-level” death estimates,¹⁹ rates of all-cause mortality took off in 2021-2023 in every country that vaxxed widely,²⁰ and an increase of “cause unknown” deaths is seen in the obituary pages around the world.²¹

And that’s not the tenth of it. Not the thirtieth, really, of what a comprehensive survey would lay out.

Two devastating recent videos provide quick surveys of the harm-claims.  The first is from Dr. Peter McCullough at the Pennsylvania State Senate:

The second is by Naomi Wolf speaking at a Values Advocacy Council event. Perhaps her best speech yet.²² (See the ftnt here if the McCullough vid is pulled.)

Over and over, the response from the larger media platforms to all these stories is silence, or occasionally, “fact-checks” which seldom do serious investigative work, instead relying on short denunciatory statements from experts of prestigious institutions.  These fact-check pieces never present dialogue between two or more differing scientific views, and never permit the arguments of the dissident side, nor its rebuttals, to be laid out at length. 

And meantime, the Claremont publications have chugged along without so much as even mentioning any of this, apart from the single story and the few single-sentence mentions noted.  None of the dissident experts listed above are referenced in any of the Claremont publications or podcasts.²³  

Two months ago I sent the Claremont editors a letter, and alerted them through personal channels, pleading with them to change course, and threatening them with this essay if they did not. 

They chose not to respond, but the aspect of my letter I want to highlight was my pointing out that they could arrange an interview with one of the dissident figures, perhaps a basically adversarial one in which his or her main claims were challenged.  That is, I made it clear that they did not need to side with the dissidents in order to give this story the attention it demands. 

For, just as grand jury members, when a certain quality and quantity of evidence is assembled, should rule that the charges merit a trial, so media editors, when an analogous body of evidence is built up, should make efforts to bring the debate to public attention. 

This is a basic duty of democracy-serving journalism.  It does apply to the editors and publishers of smaller platforms, and surely, increases all the more when the larger ones are seen to squelch a story.

Now the larger suppression campaign has not merely been waged by means of the major media blackout, but we now know (thanks to the discovery processes of Missouri v. Biden, and to the release of the “Twitterfiles”) also by the active censorship of ordinary citizens on social media, much of it directed by government agents.  It has been a systematic attempt to keep the public from learning about this topic.  And this is not the only topic in the cross-hairs. 

Make no mistake:  this censorship and suppression campaign, spearheaded by what Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, have labelled a “Censorship Industrial Complex,” has been the greatest violation of the principles of the First Amendment in our history. If there were still Democrats who cared about free speech and the Constitution, President Biden would already have been impeached and convicted for the government-run side of it.  While the Claremont Institute’s publications have not been silent about this scandal, they have not sounded the alarm as loudly as they should, and tellingly, they have not published anything indicating that what has been the topic most targeted for suppression is the very one that its own publications again and again manage not to cover.  

So in fact, we are here faced with the smothering of two should-be blockbuster stories. That about the vax-harm claims themselves, and that about the efforts to suppress discussion of them. 

What is more, the term “blockbuster” is hardly even adequate, given immensity of these stories’ implications.

For if the vax-dissidents are right, thousands of America’s top scientists, corporate leaders, political actors, and agency leaders poisoned humanity.  Did so with drugs pushed as a remedy to a previous poisoning with a Frankenvirus, which some of them also had some responsibility for! They foisted incredibly dangerous drugs on the world by way of many acts of criminal negligence driven by corrupt-investor dynamics and careerist group-think dynamics, and possibly also, by way of some intentional acts of “poison experimentation” committed by a select few. 

Given the cooperation of most of their fellow elites both in the original acts and in the present cover-up, it looks like the legitimacy of half to two-thirds of the entire leadership class would be lost were the harm-claims vindicated.  And when one ponders that, alongside the present cover-up’s breathtaking sweep (which admittedly leaves the population free-in-theory to still look into the alternative platforms), one realizes that if the many leaders whose reputations are on the line feel they need this “half-blackout” indefinitely extended, they could come to conclude they will need something like an outright coup d’etat.  

But to return to the purely biological implications, there is even some evidence that suggests America’s poisoning of humanity may be permanent, that is, that a fertility-harming and longevity-harming change to human DNA destined to spread to the entire species may be underway.²⁴

By the contemporary painter Peter Fiore—FWIW, I have no idea if he would agree with me about the Covid-19 vaxxes.

This Essay’s Purpose

 What is my purpose in bringing a charge of “aiding suppression,” or at the least, of “not attempting to fight suppression,” against a set of intellectuals I am in wide agreement with, and towards whom I have a career-interest in cultivating friendly relations?  Additionally, what guidelines for thinking about Claremont’s failure would I recommend to readers, whereby they might not become guilty of precipitous and unfair judgment, but also, whereby they might not become too ready to minimize and forget?

Answering the second question will require an exploration of hypotheses about why the Claremont Institute in particular, and most conservative organizations and politicians in general, have been so loathe to address the vax-harm claims.  And to do that properly, we will among other tasks need to consider the largely innocent-ignorance hypothesis which might be claimed as a excuse, which in turn, means assessing the duties which media and institutional leaders have in an unprecedented politics-of-information crisis like this one.  If all that sounds rather like work, it is necessary--we need to understand how and why so many conservative leaders and institutions have given themselves a pass. 

I save some of that work for a supplementary piece, but for the remainder of this, I spell-out my purpose, and offer initial guidelines for thinking about the Claremont case.            

My main purpose is to apply pressure to all those paid or otherwise rewarded to profess conservatism in academic, journalistic, or directly political circles.  I seek to warn them that what I accuse the publishers and editors of the Claremont Institute of, a stumbling and yet still willful failure to understand the situation and their duty within it, likely applies to them also. 

To speak more directly, insofar as you are a conservative leader, who has some platform, or some potential forum for public comment, and you have not publicized the Covid-19 vax-harm claims, nor pushed for investigation of them, my accusation of helping suppression falls upon you also.  And it especially does if you are among the many silent-on-this politicians. 

The End of the Era of Easy Dismissal

As for those “conservative” leaders who still accept donations from Big Pharma, or have been more directly caught up in the suppression campaign, say, by accepting money to promote the vaccines the way Fox News and Newsmax did (see footnote 2, and this Brownstone piece on the firing of Tucker), they need to understand that unless they soon engage in dramatic acts of repentance and repudiation, they could—and should--become entirely rejected by the conservative movement.  And if they have the audacity to take the path of fighting against such a reckoning, by claiming that the vax-harm issue is the mere hobby-horse of a faction within conservativism which they intend to marginalize and expel, they should know now:  it will be a very ugly and long fight indeed, against impassioned and dedicated-for-life opponents.  And, it will be a fight in which the pro-suppression side will increasingly be obliged to make an actual case for suppression.  That will be quite unlike the easy situation which has held up to this point, in which they have not had to say a thing, able to rely on the public’s inertial trust-the-experts habit, on its thirst for “normality-return,” and of course, on the suppression campaign itself.  

That easy situation is cracking under the weight of the ever-higher pile of evidence.  Witness the spectacle which took place a few months ago in the “Conservative” party of Britain, in which charges of Anti-Semitism which absolutely no-one believed in were used to kick MP Anthony Bridgen out of the party, after he had the effrontery to raise the vax-harm issue in Parliament.  American “conservative” leaders need to understand:  if they want the convenient-for-them suppression of this topic to continue, along with the fiction that persons like myself are cranks for insisting on public debate, their attacks will be forced to become that stark, and that openly in bed with the regime.

Now again, I am not accusing the Claremont editors of the kind of outright corruption which I do say those MPs in Britain’s Conservative Party who voted for Bridgen’s expulsion, and those at Fox who continue to enforce and abide by the news-blackout, are in fact guilty of.  Such “conservatives” have earned their scare-quotes.  Nor am I presently accusing most of the thousands of similarly silent Republican politicians of the same level of moral failure.  Rather, since I stress that the possibility of a several-degrees lesser level of such failure, one mixed with substantial amounts of confusion and error, ought to be entertained by anyone attempting to judge Claremont on this, perhaps a similar verdict will fit the cases of many of the politicians.  In any case, my main argument here is that for Claremont, as it is for the clearly-corrupted folks, the easy days of seeming to be doing the adult thing by not talking about the vax-harm claims are over.

My Writing and the Claremont Institute

I have written about twenty-five pieces focused on some aspect of the vax-harm issue. In this field I am a minor figure by any measure, but those who have been trying to keep up with the various Covid-vax substacks will likely recognize my name as one that from time to time shows up in the comment threads.  My PhD. is in political science, and my expertise is in the more humanities-attuned field of political philosophy, and so I have felt unable to contribute to the scientific research side of the dissidence—my writings have instead concentrated upon the broader societal and ideological implications of what I label the overall Covid/Vax Disaster. 

Three of my previous pieces sought to warn professional conservatives against ignoring this issue.  The first was in August 2022, the second, which jumped-off a Victor Davis Hanson piece, October 2022, and the third, which did the same with a major Ryan Williams speech laying out Claremont principles, February 2023.  For two of those pieces, I sent earnest “please notice this!” emails to the Claremont editors, as well as to editors of several other academic conservative outlets.  I also dropped quite a few comments below various Roundtable sessions, and I continue such pestering over in the comments of one the most important of the conservative blogs, the tireless but not-much-better-on-this-issue Powerline.   

This piece, however, is a new turn.  This is not friendly needling on the margins; not behind-the-scenes attempts to strike a compromise or get a dialogue going; not warnings about what some persons might become guilty of if they continue down a path.  Rather, this argues that the destination has been arrived at, and the guilt incurred. 

I say that the Claremont Institute, an organization dedicated to fighting the imposition of bureaucratic despotism and to defending the core American principles, while it should have been found early on in the front-lines of the Covid-19 vax-harm fight, declaring that the seriousness of the issue demanded the most open of debates, instead wound-up in the reserve ranks of the enemy side!  From there, it steadily shells dissidents like myself with the debilitating nerve-agent of ostentatious silence, the regime’s weapon of choice.  

The fact that it denounces the same corrupt regime on most other issues underlines the absurdity of its position.

Now, my metaphor suggests the Claremont Institute is a singular thing, but this is not the case.  It has several “departments,” and my accusations here are directed at the editors (and publishers) of the two publications.  Admittedly, my arguments could imply a milder critique of scholars allied with the Institute, and the administrators working within it, who were in a position to prod the editors on this issue.  However, such a critique is not among my purposes here.  Perhaps it is a criticism which could be justly lodged, but I treasure the way many of the Institute-affiliated scholars focus intently on their specialized areas of history, philosophy, etc., and my gut tells me they should seldom if ever be called to account for supposed neglect of a current event. 

Readers less familiar with the Institute can explore its mission statement on its webpage, where they will also find the lists of its editors and affiliated scholars.  An explanation of my own of its a.) political philosophy and b.) articulation of conservativism, and how these differ from those of PostModernConservative, can be found in a 2021 piece in which I defended the Institute from an unfair January-6^th-related attack. 

An Initial Look at the Likely Excuses

 I do not know how the editors will respond my accusation.  I fear it will be a continued silent-treatment.  That would be bad, and not only because it would be an insult, implying that my opinion is worthy of little but contempt, but also because such a non-response could be reasonably interpreted by their readership to mean any number of things.  It could mean the editors have been too busy and uninformed to give this issue the attention it merits, and thus also, spent little or no time reading my piece.  Or, it could mean that a corruption like that of the UK Tories or the Fox News personnel is in play, even if there is no evidence for it yet--one could posit various mechanisms producing corruption, and pressure from either the Trump camp or the deep state could be one of these, but I will again state my firm belief that corruption by way of monetary gain/interest is quite unlikely with the Institute, even marginally.  Or, it could mean that the editors sincerely believe, after somewhat careful deliberation and guided by principle, that the vax-harm claims ought to be suppressed by most media, including themselves, either because they judge the claims to be quite factually suspect according to the best science, or because they judge open discussion of the issue as too dangerous to the basic stability of the nation.  Of course, if the Claremont editors really do believe that the vax-harm claims do not meet the minimal standards of rigor necessary to justify public discussion, they are obliged to come out and say that, and, to take significant pains to defend that.

I hope for much better, however.  I hope the editors’ main response will be something like, “You make a number of good points, we have made a few errors, and yes, you could say we have let the ball drop on this.”  And likely, that would be followed by a number of excuses.  Now, I will feel immense relief and gratitude if this is the path they take, such that I would be inclined to paper-over all remaining differences, but I am obliged to admit that I would likely not regard their excuses as adequate.  I will here give a brief look at three possible excuses, in part as a way of warning them about what sort of arguments won’t work, but more so, for the sake of suggesting how sincere and non-corrupted persons placed in the editors’ shoes could have misled themselves.  That is, I hope readers will notice why these excuses could have seemed plausible-enough to facilitate a series of quick mental dismissals that kept the editors from realizing their duty. 

First, the editors might say “Our platforms are not journalism outlets, but ones of a specific kind of punditry.  We do not run newspapers nor news channels, so we never felt the duty to cover which your criticism stresses.”

My reply:  It may be that most pieces and discussions you publish primarily consist of editorial comment, but in choice of currents events to editorialize upon, you necessarily convey a message about what topics demand notice.  And as I suggest above, at some point judgments about the newsworthiness of the vax-harm issue had to also become judgments about how to stand for the fundamental freedoms of speech and press during an unprecedented attack upon them.

Second, the editors might say “The expertise of most us is in political philosophy and social science, and not in the relevant medical sciences.  We felt we had no business investigating or even tentatively evaluating the vax-harm claims—the only responsible thing was to defer to the established experts.”

My reply:   You could have become aware that a basic part of the vax-dissidents’ case was that the established experts and government agencies are heavily corrupted by Pharma influence, a corruption extending to the publication and withdrawal decisions of the key journals.  And as you surely know, the proper question has never been “What does ‘the science’ say?” but “What is the range of credible scientists’ judgments?”

Moreover, imagine an editor in mid-30s Britain who, in reaction to Churchill’s detailed reports about German rearmament, said something like this:  “I agree with respectable opinion that it surely cannot be as bad as that war-lover Winston says, although I am no expert in arms-development, nor do I have any such expert on my staff.  Winston had his years working at the top level with military budgets, and now he makes all sorts of assertions which seem grounded in this expertise, but I cannot be expected to evaluate them.  The respected experts say he is exaggerating, and thus, my journal has no responsibility to check into it further.”  Isn’t my imagined editor’s excusing himself on the basis of his lack of arms-development expertise quite like the one you make? 

Third, the editors might say “The primary way our publications work is that our editors and affiliated scholars write a number of the pieces, and other writers submit drafts for our consideration.  We do not have the resources to be out there soliciting pieces from a wide array of writers and experts.  We are to a significant degree dependent on submissions, particularly regarding topics more off our radar, and the fact is, few writers submitted pieces on the vax-harm claims to us.”

My reply:  This would not explain the near-zero discussion of the claims on the Roundtable podcast.  Also, writers seldom submit pieces on an issue to publications which seem determined to avoid it, as yours have with this one.

Finally, you saw that the major-media suppression of this topic was happening, and knew that because it extended to Fox, your platform was now among the only ones in the more-respectable conservative space where the topic could be addressed.  You should have seen that events were forcing upon you a special responsibility, and that your standard editorial practices had to be altered somewhat to rise up to it.  

Conclusion

In sum, the Claremont editors have helped a despotism-mainstreaming regime suppress what looks to be the story of the century, which is also the one that best underlines the sheer deadliness of its Narrative-Enforcement “politics.”

We could characterize Claremont’s role as more passive than active, but what is undeniable is that they have raised no protest against this suppression, nor taken any significant actions with their own publications to combat it. 

Now throughout this piece I speak of vax-harm “claims,” because I wish to stress that the moral choice here centered upon responsibility to report on a debate, a responsibility which should have overridden any gut-sense of which side was right.  And thus, though it takes us far into the realm of the hypothetical, let us entertain a few final thoughts about Claremont’s case if the vax-harm dissidents turn out to be largely wrong.  Let us postulate that the harms from the Covid-19 injections, while still being well-beyond those of every previous vaccine, will be limited to a final tally of, say, one hundred-thousand deaths and a half-million injuries across the globe from 2021-2031.  Arguably, we could regard that as a “not widespread” level of harm, and it would be far less than the estimates of nearly every dissident expert.  If such a lesser disaster were to prove be the truth of the matter, against all the evidence assembled in the footnotes and linked videos of this piece, our judgment would then become this one:  Claremont helped suppress a needed discussion about a large number of troubling facts and initially-plausible theories that turned out, upon closer examination, to have alternative explanations and initially-unobvious flaws.  However, as the public would still have deserved a much more open investigation, and would still wind-up outraged and unsettled by the way discussion was shut-down, Claremont’s having joined the suppression would still be wrong.  So, whether a scenario like this one of limited harms proves correct, or the far-more-reasonably-expected one of widespread harm does, the Claremont editors stumbled badly.  And it hardly matters to what degree this will subject them to awkwardness in their future commentaries upon RFK Jr.’s campaign, or in the coming campaign debates generally.  For they had a responsibility of their own to discuss the harm-claims, one that was pressing from December ‘21 on, became acute by the fall of ’22, and could only be scandalously ducked by the spring of ‘23.

Eventually, I am sure they will realize and confess their failure on this, and I underline the fact that their role in the suppression has been and remains an adjunct one, such that the main fault for it, and certainly for the villainous direction of it, lies with others. 

But nonetheless, alas!

One of their slogans—but not one that squares with their helping to squelch a story as momentous as this.

Note: the judgments in this piece are mine, and should not to be attributed to the other writers for PostModernConservative.   

1. 200,000 U.S deaths would likely mean two-to-three million world-wide. We are 4.5% of the world’s population, but China used different Covid vaccines, and many poorer countries had very low rates of vaccination. So while I have not done real research on this particular corner of the issue, it looks like multiplying the U.S. deaths by some number between 10-14 gets us the likely world number. Please correct me in the comments if you know better! You might read Peter Halligan’s work on the India numbers to begin thinking about the world number, and to see why huge estimates really are in play, although my uninformed-about-India impression is that Halligan’s estimates for that nation must be too high. We shall see. Another crude ball-park estimation tool, this one entirely my own and suggested by VAERS data, is that the number of persons seriously injured by the Covid-19 vaxxes is around four to five times higher than the death number, and that the number of persons among these who have been permanently disabled is about the same as the death number.  Broader definition of “injury” to included any harm skyrockets the numbers—see ftnt 19. Big debates surround all such estimates, but the key ones concern the death number.  There are three basic methods for estimating it:  A.) Using the VAERS data and then multiplying it by the estimated Under-Reporting Factor (URF), B.) extrapolating from surveys which ask respondents how many persons they know who appear to have been killed by the vaxxes, and C.) analysis of All-Cause-Mortality data, data which has seen significant jumps of excess deaths, jumps particularly notable in the lower-age brackets.  Footnote 7 will provide more info for A.), 19 for B.), and 20 for C.).  The best overall discussion of different death-number estimates, and the objections to them, remains the August ’22 piece “American Massacre” by Naomi Wolf. Again, link away in the comments if you know of even better analyses.

2. On the HHS money taken by Fox, and also by Newsmax:  see this Emerald Robinson expansion upon some Chris Pandolfo work for the Blaze. (Robinson writes it up here.)  On my judgment of the Institute’s integrity: this is based on years of observation, but is also supported by their recent Feature which dared to be critical of the Koch Foundation—not a small thing for a donor-dependent conservative organization to do.

3. I arrived at 536 and 490 by using the American Mind’s website, and the three tabs for their three kinds of articles, “Salvos,” “Memos,” and “Features,” and then counting, and classifying which pieces in the set period were anchored in some way in a current event. Pieces on more strictly cultural, literary, & philosophic topics were subtracted from the 536 total, as were ones among them which merely mentioned one or more current events, but did not build significant parts of their discussion upon them. There turned out to be no need to differently count the three categories of pieces—the distinction between a “Salvos” and a “Memo” piece is pretty fine, and a “Feature” is simply a piece which runs alongside three or four others on a single theme. Similar methods were used with the Roundtable episodes, but there I did have the advantage of having listened to many of them at the time. Here’s the episode with the uber-quick mention (32:08) of RFK Jr. and the vax-harms. And the two AM pieces which made single-sentence mentions of the vax-harm claims were this and this.

4. CRB did publish a review by the physician Theodore Dalrymple of Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s The Real Antony Fauci, one so thoroughly hostile as to compare it to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  I admit that Dalrymple delivers some legitimate hits upon Kennedy’s book, but his overall tone is atrocious, and his dismissal of the quality of its research ought to be compared to the way the biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse Podcast) once attested to how solid the research is—they said every one of the many footnotes they looked into checked out. 

5. The video which first revealed this, if I recall correctly, was this famous June ’21 episode of Darkhorse Podcast.

6. A 6/26/23 check of the U.S. and territories number, using the helpful Open VAERS website, shows 17,560 reported deaths. The same check shows 35,443 deaths when you add those reports to those coming in from across the world. That latter number, the VAERS number most talked about, first exceeded 20,000 in December of 2021. See Totality of Evidence (but note their confusedly calling this number the “U.S. VAERS” one—what they mean is that VAERS is run by the U.S., though it collects reports from around the world.)

7. My statement basically follows Steve Kirsch’s method of calculation, which is summarized in a single slide (#19) he has been presenting at talks. That slide also refers to the work of Dr. Jessica Rose, who has estimated the URF to be x30, not his x41. If you have reservations about this method, you are not alone, but the fact is, Kirsch has a host of hard-to-answer arguments supporting it, earlier gold-standard studies indicated huge URFs for the pre-Covid-era of VAERS use, estimates using this method often line-up with results from all-cause-mortality analysis, and in myriads of ways, the vax dissidents have shown that the propaganda you sometimes hear from regime shills like Peter Hotez and Rochelle Walensky, that VAERS more probably over-reports, is absolute garbage. Maybe the URF is not as high as 30 or 41 (or 50, according to another analyst), but nothing I have come across remotely suggests it could be less than 3-5, and even with URFs posited to be that low, you wind up at huge numbers worldwide, at a minimum, a half-million deaths. Again, see the Wolf piece linked in footnote 1—the debate here is not over, but no opponent of the dissident estimates has come close to making a serious refutation.

8. On the range of adverse-events, follow the links in this Totality of Evidence piece.

9. I made a good deal of these in several pieces, the last of which was “Update on the Hirschman Horror,” which you would do well to supplement with this from A Midwestern Doctor, but I am happy to report that on this issue, we may actually have a good-news incidence of vax-harm dissidents like myself being wrong about one of our theories. Or at least, half-way good news. I recently learned from John Campbell that the (alas, late!) German doctor Arne Burckhardt, famous among vax-dissidents for having pioneered the best autopsy techniques for suspected Covid-19 vax deaths, shared that a certain set of tests were done which indicate that these “Hirschman clots” form shortly after death, due to cooling temperatures. He (or Campbell) additionally indicated that in his judgment, the gradual growth of these in the bodies of the living would be “incompatible with life,” i.e., that that much interference with blood flow would kill you long before a final clogging. Now this theory, in which these “clots” were not growing in the bodies of the living, a theory which would explain some of the weirder aspects of the story, such as Hirschman noticing incremental growth of some of the clot-like structures after being placed in storage tubes, still brings with it some very bad news: huge numbers of the vaxxed would have had to have had something altered about their blood which, while it didn’t harm them with the clot structures, caused it to behave in ways, once it cooled in the body after their death, never seen by embalmers before. That is a pretty serious alteration of the blood, and it would correlate with the many observations both doctors and embalmers have made about the blood of the vaxxed often appearing different, and with what McCullough reports about the non-Hirschman-type clotting problems which have been one of the main kinds of adverse events. (See 17:52-20:08 in the above video, and don’t miss the shocking news in there about the micro-clotting discovered in the retinas of millions!)

10. See the famous December 2021 Sucharit Bhakdi video—here’s a written breakdown of it—and a more recent talk by the late pioneer of the new autopsy techniques, Arne Burkhardt. Also, see this Ryan Cole discussion with Steve Kirsch.

11. Go here for its trial abuses. For a few of its cover-up crimes, see 14:54-17:00 of the Wolf speech above, or this recent CHD report on EMA-requested documents.

12. See 22:00-25:33 of McCullough video above. Also How Bad Is My Batch? & Sasha Latypova.

13. See 19:30-26:00 of the recent N. Wolf lecture linked above.

14. Two reports out of scores we could cite: Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute has shown how the CDC hides data, and the “Ethical Skeptic” how it corrupts data. And here’s a Eugyppius report on the one of the more embarrassing things it has done of late.

15. On FDA negligence with the Pfizer data, see N. Wolf lecture at 17:00-17:15. Also see this Darkhorse report on a recent BMJ commentary “The Decline of Science at the FDA Has Become Unmanageable,” 23:55-30ish, especially the early commentary on FDA funding. Also pp. 122-29 of Aaron Kheriaty’s essential book The New Abnormal on its general corruption issues, and how these also apply to the CDC and NIH.

16. On the Thai study, see Kim Iversen interviewing Peter McCullough, and John Campbell, and 12:40-16:40 of the McCullough video above, noting his citations of numerous medical papers. See also this recent tweet from McCullough about a European Health Journal study claiming that “Myocarditis is now the leading health threat for vaccinated teenagers.”

17. See 28:00-41:00 of the N. Wolf lecture, and the relevant reports in her teams’ book.

18. See this recent Ryan Cole video.

19. See 24:30-45 of the McCullough video on last summer’s Zogby survey, suggesting that 15% of all Americans have had some kind of medical problem linked to the vaxxes; read this Steve Kirsch report on a recent Rasmussen survey. You might also look into his and others’ analyses of the controversy surrounding the findings, and the forced withdrawal of, the Mark Skidmore paper which used survey techniques to arrive at a 278,000 deaths in 2021 alone estimate.

20. Here are two solid video presentations from Ed Dowd and John Campbell, and a long Mark Crispin Miller summary article.

21. Go through the reports on Mark Crispin Miller’s site—here is the latest batch.

22. Rumble link for McCullough: https://rumble.com/v2tgr66-dr.-peter-mccullough-testifies-in-pennsylvania-senate-four-vaccine-injury-s.html And here’s a breakdown of Wolf’s talk.

23. There was one Spencer Klavan piece in the American Mind which briefly mentioned—but not by name—the famous vax-harm dissident Dr. Robert Malone, because his appearance on one of Joe Rogan’s shows had generated ugly censorship efforts. Klavan substituted Malone’s name with the phrase “one pretty intense doctor.” Adjunct suppression, you see, is one pretty subtle art! (My wit is a tad too pointed, however, because at the time, Klavan appears to have believed that anything which caused “hesitancy” about the Covid-19 vaxxes was regrettable, and his main, and valid-for-its-purposes, argument was that censorious moves would actually increase the distrust. I do hope he now understands why what he joined many in calling “hesitancy,” actually deserved to be called “good gut sense” or even “practical wisdom,” and that he reflects on the ways of thinking which constituted it, the better to see why they proved superior to his evidently more simplistic ones, at least on this issue.)

24. Explore Dr. Daniel Nagase’s work generally as an intro to the future debates which must come concerning claims of DNA alteration, even though he takes for granted “Big Conspiracy” and “Culling by ‘Philanthropaths’” theories which I do not—but which I don’t rule out, and esp. when we posit their operation by smaller sets of conspiracists—, and watch this video for his theory of DNA-change-related cancer increases. Also, review the material on fertility at 28:00-41:00 of the N. Wolf lecture, and the devastating moment (11:00-12:40) of the A. Burkhardt lecture linked in note 10, where, after showing evidence of spike protein in the testes, he says “If I were a woman in fertile age, I would not plan a motherhood from a person, from a man, who has been vaccinated.”