International Commentary (50)

FREEDOM! The Daughter of Davos Resigns

The legacy of New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern.


(Courtesy of

Two extraordinary things happened yesterday.

First, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced her resignation effective, at the latest, early in February 2023. (Yes, New Zealanders need to endure her for a few weeks more!)

Second, I put out this short tweet yesterday together with a video of the Prime Minister, and it went viral. In a mere 180 minutes, it was seen by 67,400 people and was still swishing around the globe as I wrote this. After 8 hours, 165,000+!

You have to ask ‘WHY?’

Jacinda Ardern set a couple of records. She was the youngest female prime minister ever in 2017. Further, she gave birth whilst in office.

Of course, neither of these has anything to do with political achievement.

To be fair, we can probably agree that Jacinda Ardern is expressive.

Some went so far as to say she showed great empathy.

I think it more accurate to say any apparent empathy was self-consciously dispensed and exclusively to beneficiaries of her bias.

Any praise for expressiveness and empathy needs much closer scrutiny. It’s what she expresses that so confounds civil libertarians like you and me. And, if you don’t mind me expressing myself here dear reader, she showed a distinct lack of empathy for many during covid lockdowns, victims of which are generations not yet born as you’ll see. So read on.

Instead, what we observed was a smiling socialist, a Daughter of Davos, instinct over intellect, all feeling and no financial finesse. In short, she was a classical liberal’s nightmare.

Just look at the legacy she leaves after six reckless years in office:

  • Churches closed and a clergy laid bare in compliance;
  • Frequent meddling with the free market. The results: distortions in housing prices and a generation of first home buyers shut-out of their ownership aspirations;
  • A backlash against over-zealous covid restrictions and loss of personal freedoms, including creating a medical-apartheid defined by vaccination-status.
  • Conscientious objectors and the vaccine-hesitant were shunned socially, denied mobility, prevented from earning a living and targeted by government in ways the Stasi would have relished in Soviet-era East Germany;
  • Consequential increasing crime rates in the island nation;
  • Inflation sitting at 7.2%;
  • Food prices spiking 8.3% compared with the same time a year earlier;
  • Successive interest rate increases from New Zealand’s central bank;
  • A monstrous public debt! When she took office, the public debt was approximately $60 billion USD. Projections are that, based on all data currently available reflecting the decisions of her government, that the national debt will balloon to $151 billion USD by 2027. If the figure proves higher or lower than that, it will be the result of her successor’s policies, but you can see the economic vandalism on her watch. Put it this way, she led a government which racked-up triple the debt of all previous New Zealand governments combined. She went way over the credit card limit and left someone else to pick up the bill. Funny, right?
  • For a country with a population the size of Boston, it will take three generations at least to bring that debt to heel. We are talking inter-generational theft which will crush Zoomer Kiwis’ standard of living, their children and their grandchildren. That is to say, on the day after you, I and Jacinda Ardern meet our Lord and Maker, New Zealanders will be dealing with the Ardern Economic Catastrophe for another two generations thereafter;
  • Many of them will flee New Zealand and hollow this beautiful jewel of the South Pacific. They have been emigrating anyway, mainly to Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States;
  • A strategic flirtation with the Chinese Communist Party, a regime which openly persecutes people of faith, the Church included. Her Labour Party has long shunned our liberal democratic ally, America. It was a natural progression from that to openly calling for greater integration with the communists, a weak-kneed strategy in favour of firebrand authoritarianism with a chequebook over the cleansing-balm of liberty;
  • Consistent with that predisposition towards authoritarianism, civil liberties in New Zealand were shattered under her Governments. Emergency powers poised to be invoked again at any time are left in place;
  • Chinese Communist Party infiltration of New Zealand consulates and banks;
  • She openly lied about the efficacy of covid vaccines. “If you take the vaccine, you’ll still get covid but you won’t get sick and you won’t die” was a claim she made during the height of an hysteria of her own making, and contradicted by the science and the manufacturer.
  • More government restrictions on the access and use of water;
  • Crushing regulations on agricultural emissions;
  • Further shifting of the goal posts with hate speech laws without any safeguards as to who adjudicates what ‘hate speech’ actually is. You and I know these templated laws are now being used against Christians in other countries. She was heading down a dark path.

The adulation and applause had faded about a year ago. The shadowy World Economic Forum’s simping seemed impossibly distant now. Jacinda Ardern had to face the people of New Zealand imminently and the prospects weren’t promising.

With polling numbers in decline and the sparkle now tarnished, the Prime Minister did what all faithful authoritarians and central-planners do when their number is up. She spoke sweetly, smiled nervously, then scurried to the nearest exit hoping that the rule of law she undermined holds firm for her.

I was shocked my tweet went viral. I shouldn’t have been. Countless everyday people across the West, people like you and I, have had a gutful.

Excuse my plain writing. The Daughter of Davos was a symbol of all that has gone wrong over the last 3 years. So of course you cheered her departure.

I don’t think we’ll have to wait long before she re-emerges with an ostentatious job title and global brief somewhere in the world. “Poverty Ambassador-At-Large, World Economic Forum”, on $820,000 per annum, Davos chalet and chauffeur the obligatory perks on top sounds about right.

And when that happens, you and I can both smile knowingly that at least here she won’t have harmed anyone further. On her departure from the Land of the Long White Cloud, she will increase the average IQ of New Zealand, and not decrease that of the World Economic Forum.

Pardon me if I shed not a solitary tear.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (116)

NSW Government will no Longer Publish Vaccination Status of Those who are Hospitalized or Die With Covid

Source: Staff Writer, Cauldron, January 11, 2023

“At the end of 2022, the state government’s report revealed that more than 1,400 people who had received two vaccines or more were hospitalised with COVID-19. The majority of those (810), received four or more doses. There were no unvaccinated people hospitalised with the virus.”

The New South Wales government has said it will no longer publish the vaccination status of individuals who are hospitalised or die from COVID-19.

Former Federal Liberal MP Craig Kelly slammed the move, describing it as a “cover-up” intended to hide the fact that there are currently no unvaccinated patients hospitalised with COVID.

At the end of 2022, the state government’s report revealed that more than 1,400 people who had received two vaccines or more were hospitalised with COVID-19. The majority of those (810), received four or more doses. There were no unvaccinated people hospitalised with the virus.

Of those hospitalised, 104 people who had received two doses or more were admitted to ICU.

The same report recorded 81 Covid-related deaths among those with two doses or more and six deaths among those listed as unvaccinated. These deaths were mostly in people 70 years and older.

Despite the militant vaccine rollout in Australia, Covid deaths in aged care homes have progressively increased since October, surpassing 100 deaths every week.

The Guardian reported that there are presently 3,949 cases among aged care residents and 1,661 staff cases associated with the current 738 outbreaks now active in residential aged care facilities.

“The total number of Covid-related deaths reported by aged care providers during the pandemic has now risen to 4,612,” the report said.

“That’s an increase of 120 reported deaths in the past seven days, the data shows.”

According to The Guardian, “the fourth dose vaccine rates are currently at more than 83% for the eligible aged care population and the government is continuing to prioritise anti-virals and vaccines for older Australians.”

The reports from NSW Health are intended to “provide an understanding of what is happening in the community.” The data is collected “for surveillance purposes and are indicative of trends” and the relationship “between vaccination and outcomes.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (115)

Nuremberg 2: What a Real Inquiry Into the Response to COVID Would Look Like – Must-Read Mega-Thread

“Reports have revealed that military leaders saw COVID as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public. Who advised western leaders to use military-grade propaganda on their own people?”


San Francisco-based attorney and author Michael P. Senger has posted a must-read mega-thread to Twitter describing what a real inquiry into the global response to COVID would look like.

Senger, author of the book Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World, warned that we won’t be living in a real democracy until we have real answers as to how exactly COVID measures happened, and why. Senger writes:

THREAD – Nuremberg 2: What a Real Inquiry into the Response to COVID Would Look Like Given the magnitude of the harm that’s been done, the public deserves to know exactly who knew and did what, when, and why in the days leading up to the lockdowns of spring 2020 and beyond.

Though it may not be politically feasible, ideally an inquiry into the response to COVID would take the form of an international tribunal. Below are just some of the many disturbing questions to which any leader who claims to represent the public ought to demand answers.

1. Why did the CDC suddenly adopt “measures to increase social distance” as official policy in 2004, contrary to all the epidemiological guidance it had developed throughout the 20th century?

2. Who was behind the campaign to export the concept of “lockdown” to Liberia and Sierra Leone in 2014?

3. Some intelligence reports have indicated that members of the western national security community were aware a new virus had emerged in China by fall 2019. What was being said about the virus at that time?

4. If some national security officials had been worrying about a new virus in China since fall 2019, how could they have possibly believed China’s two-month lockdown of Wuhan eliminated the virus several months later?

5. By January 2020, tips began to emerge that the World Health Organization was planning to recreate China’s lockdowns across the world, starting in Italy. When and on what basis did the World Health Organization make this decision?

6. Lockdowns had been ruled out by the pandemic plans of the WHO and every developed nation. Why weren’t these pandemic plans followed?

7. Why were health security officials talking about “curfews of indefinite duration” by February 24, 2020?

8. Why does the WHO’s February 2020 report rely on flagrant logical fallacies in its promulgation of China’s lockdown measures as global policy?

9. Why was the current Director of National Intelligence sitting next to China’s CDC director at the Event 201 simulation of a coronavirus pandemic in October 2019, just weeks before a real coronavirus pandemic emerged?

10. Former White House COVID Coordinator Deborah Birx has made conflicting statements about how she got her job. The former Deputy National Security Advisor offered her a job in the White House as far back as Nov 2019. How was Birx chosen for this?

11. Who was behind the terror campaign of fake videos showing Wuhan residents spontaneously dying and convulsing in the streets in January and February 2020?

12. Why is there no record of the hero doctor Li Wenliang before he appeared in Chinese state media at the end of January 2020? On what basis did western media outlets adopt this story as true?

13. High-level national security officials have stated that Covid came from a lab in Wuhan. At the same time, high-level scientific officials have stated it is “molecularly impossible” for Covid to have come from there. Why the disconnect?

14. Why has overwhelming peer-reviewed evidence that COVID was already spreading globally by fall 2019 been so widely downplayed by federal officials and major media outlets?

15. Reports have revealed that military leaders saw COVID as a unique opportunity to test propaganda techniques on the public. Who advised western leaders to use military-grade propaganda on their own people?

16. Some officials in the UK later expressed contrition about the fear campaigns that the UK Government used on its own people to convince them to support Covid mandates. How was the decision to use these fear campaigns made?

17. Who was behind the massive bot and astroturf campaigns to popularize lockdowns among western citizens and officials in March 2020?

18. How many deaths were caused by the WHO’s initial guidance on mechanical ventilators, which cited Chinese journal articles advising ventilators as the “first choice” for those hospitalized with Covid?

19. The initial guidance from the WHO advised using mechanical ventilators not necessarily for the patient’s benefit, but to control the spread of the virus. Why was the WHO advising doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath?

20. Why were numerous, credible predictions of famine, human rights disasters, and economic collapse as a result of lockdowns ignored at the time they were implemented?

21. Why was natural immunity to COVID so long downplayed?

22. Why were initial seroprevalence studies demonstrating COVID’s ubiquity downplayed?

23. Why were beaches and other outdoor spaces closed?

24. Why was the public kept in the dark about low early estimates of COVID’s infection fatality rate?

25. What was the source of the guidance to move patients who were still sick into nursing homes?

26. Remdesivir and midazolam were initially widely used, but didn’t lead to positive health outcomes. How was the decision made to use these over other treatment protocols?

27. Leading officials have made conflicting statements as to whether the goal of lockdowns was to eliminate the virus, slow the spread, or buy time for vaccines. What was the actual goal they had in mind at the time they implemented these policies?

28. Why did key public health officials make statements about using the response to COVID to advance non-health-related policy goals?

29. How was the decision made to suppress and censor scientific opinions that dissented from lockdowns?

30. Why were so many federal officials so intimately involved in the censorship of dissenting COVID opinions on social media?

31. Why were social media executives given Top Secret US Security Clearances for purposes of censoring content, and what was the vetting process, if any, for these clearances?

32. Why were federal officials working so closely with Twitter to censor legal speech by American citizens while an AI expert with deep ties to the military of America’s chief adversary was on Twitter’s Board of Directors?

33. Why did elite western newspapers, media networks, and public health leaders so diligently repeat the absurd line that China had eliminated Covid by shutting down one city for two months?

34. Why did elite western publications begin explicitly urging the public to adopt a response to COVID that was more like China’s? .

35. Why were mechanical drones initially deployed by various states and countries to monitor lockdown compliance?

36. Why did masks shift from being not advised to being mandatory?

37. The New York Times confirmed that at the standard cycle threshold level used for PCR testing, 85 to 90% of Covid cases were false positives. How did this practice become standard?

38. Why were widely-known and publicized problems with PCR testing and comorbidities ignored for purposes of counting COVID deaths?

39. Why did key public health officials so quickly shift from saying vaccines would prevent Covid to saying proof of vaccination should be mandatory to partake in everyday activities?

40. Why has there been so little public discussion of China’s influence on the global response to COVID, despite the FBI Director’s disclosure that Chinese officials were “aggressively urging support for China’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis?”

41. Why were governments across the western world so deferential to Neil Ferguson and Imperial College during the response to COVID, despite Imperial having the closest relationship with China of any western university?

42. Why has the editor-in-chief of the Lancet been so publicly deferential to China?

43. Why did Bill Gates express such admiration for China’s response to Covid?

44. How did a 40-year member of the British Communist Party with no background in epidemiology become a leading advisor to the UK Government on COVID, and why was she recently promoted to lead the WHO’s nudge unit?

45. Why did economists at leading universities assume that a short, sharp lockdown would “eliminate the resurgence risk” when the policy had no precedent?

46. Why did politicians and public health officials demonstrate so little concern for following their own COVID rules?

47. If COVID was actually deadly enough to kill millions and justify an indefinite state of emergency, why has so little effort been expended to hold China accountable for its initial coverup of that virus?

Though many in positions of power would prefer we forgot, the strict lockdowns that consumed the world in 2020 are extremely well documented. Until we have real answers as to how exactly they happened, and why, we won’t be living in a real democracy.


Resisting Evil Governments

By Andrew McColl, 3rd January, 2023

Like a roaring lion and a rushing bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. A leader who is a great oppressor lacks understanding, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days (Prov.28:15, 16).

Evil governments are commonly pictured in scripture as predatory animals, for that’s what they’re like. Daniel 7 speaks of 4 beasts: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a fourth beast, that “…devoured and crushed and trampled down…” (v.7), while Revelation 13:2 repeats the leopard, bear and lion imagery, all over again. This doesn’t look good!

What are we to do, when confronted by evil, predatory governments? The Bible answers this question, this way.

When the wicked rise, men hide themselves; but when they perish, the righteous increase (Prov.28:28).

This is what Moses’ mother Jochebed did to protect Moses from Pharoah. She knew of Pharoah’s commands to the Hebrew mid-wives, to throw the Hebrew baby boys into the Nile (see Ex.1:15-22), so she built a wicker basket for Moses, hiding him from the murderous Pharaoh, till she could “…hide him no longer…” (Ex.2:1-10).  What does this passage implicitly teach us?

It’s always legitimate to hide and protect the innocent from predators, in whatever form they may appear. Not only is it legitimate, but it’s right to do so, for God has told us that He hates “…hands that shed innocent blood” (Prov.6:17). Those who do protect the innocent from harm will always be applauded and appreciated in a free society.

My colleague, Family Voice Victoria Director, Peter Stevens, has written on the re-election of the Victorian State Labor Party, in November, 2022. Peter comments that before the election,

Labor had shocked Christian conservatives with extreme abortion laws, euthanasia, removed faith-based organisations’ right to employ according to ethos, introduced gender change on birth certificates, criminalized counselling or prayer for those seeking gender or sexual help, and pushed ahead with gender and sexual ideology curriculum from kinder to Year 12.[1]

Each one of these policies represents an assault on the Christian faith, the family, and life itself. The Victorian Premier and his government are actually guilty of jurisdictional usurpation, in that it is usurping the role and responsibility of parents, by dictating what parents can and cannot say to their children, if those children have some confusion or uncertainties in relation to their identity. This is utterly unacceptable, authoritarian, and evil,  and could well lead to a future court challenge.

Children may have some uncertainties about their identity as a boy or girl, which are commonly compounded by foolish school curriculums, or by social media and peer-groups. It’s important that godly parents give their children hope in these circumstances, and give them a fighting chance, by lovingly reminding them of the truth about themselves, which they desperately need to hear, along with removing them from the sources of such nonsense. Genesis 1:27 shows us that “transgender” is nothing but a lie:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

We cannot turn back Victorian Labor’s awful laws overnight, but we can and must act responsibly as parents, in order to protect the children God has entrusted to us, just as Moses’ parents protected him from a murderous Pharoah, and just as Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, when God warned them of Herod’s determination to kill Jesus (Mat.2:13-15).

Regardless of the Victorian government’s legislation, children with some instabilities don’t need their parents to go along with them, if ever they are having flights of thinking to a dangerous fantasy land. Rather, the Bible commands us to

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy (Prov.31:8, 9).

This is one of many things godly families can do to resist and thwart this evil legislation, for the sake of their families, and it won’t be the last.

[1]Peter Stevens, “Will Today’s Liberal Party Leaders Ever Learn?” Onpoint, January 2023.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (114)

Pfizer’s Shots Aren’t Safe and Were Never Shown To Be

By Dr. Joseph Mercola December 28, 2022

Contrary to the official narrative (and hence popular belief), the COVID shots have no demonstrated safety. In Episode 298 of The Highwire, Del Bigtree interviews attorney Aaron Siri about the various lawsuits his firm has brought to reverse COVID jab mandates.

Siri describes a recent deposition of Dr. Kathryn Edwards, a world-leading vaccinologist who sat on Pfizer’s data safety monitoring board (DSMB). This five-member committee oversaw the safety of Pfizer’s jab. A DSMB is supposed to be an independent group of experts, whose responsibility it is to monitor patient safety and treatment efficacy data while a clinical trial is ongoing.

Pfizer’s Not-so-Independent Safety Monitoring Board

As noted by Siri in the deposition, since the DSMB is supposed to be independent, it’s crucially important that all the members of that board have no potential conflicts of interest and are in fact truly independent of the drug company whose product they’re evaluating.

In the case of Edwards, she was a paid adviser to Pfizer before she was hired (by Pfizer) to be on the DSMB for their COVID jab. According to Edwards, this fact is irrelevant, because that prior relationship did not influence the work she did on the board.

“I say what I believe based on my expertise,” she told Siri. “So, you don’t think financial incentive can sway people’s judgment at all?” Siri asked. “It does not sway my judgment, Sir,” she replied. “Then why have an independent DSMB?” Siri asked. “Why doesn’t Pfizer just have some of its employees on it?”

“Because we are independent; we are independent from Pfizer in this assessment,” she replied. But just how can an independent advisory committee possibly be “independent” if members have prior relationships with the company?

Another noteworthy tidbit from that deposition was Edwards’ comment that she reviewed “lots of reactions and adverse events” from the COVID jab trial. Yet the public has continuously been told there are no bad reactions. So, what was she looking at? And why, if there were “lots of reactions,” did the DSMB conclude that there are no safety concerns?

Of course, we know at least some of what she was looking at. Pfizer trial documents1 have been released showing the company amassed nine single-spaced pages’ worth of “adverse events of special interest” (see pages 30 through 382), including 1,223 events with fatal outcomes between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021 alone.

whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 trial has also come forward with evidence showing data were falsified, patients were unblinded and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind. Why didn’t any of these issues concern the DSMB? Was it because there really was no independent DSMB?

What German Autopsy Data Have Revealed

In a mid-December 2022 Substack article, the anonymous writer who goes by the moniker “A Midwestern Doctor” reviewed German autopsy data, which demonstrate:3

  • The presence of “highly unusual tissue inflammation” in people who died shortly after getting the jab. As noted by the author, “Pathologists had not observed this phenomena before the COVID-19 vaccines, and they suspected this inflammation would be fatal.”
  • The presence of COVID spike protein in the tissues of the deceased, whereas another key part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was absent. This suggests the actual virus was not part of the problem; the only possible source of the spike protein was the jab.

The most recent and “most definitive” study on this subject, according to A Midwestern Doctor, examined 35 people who died within 20 days of getting the COVID jab. After thorough autopsy examination, 10 of the deceased were determined to have died from causes other than the jab.

Among the remaining 25, most died from causes that, in general, have frequently been linked to vaccination. Five died from myocarditis, which could potentially be linked to the shot. In three of those five cases, the COVID jab was determined to be the definitive cause of the myocarditis that led to their death.

As noted by A Midwestern Doctor, “These results are very important for convicting the vaccines if it can also be proven that a large number of unexpected deaths are occurring following vaccination.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what excess mortality data tell us.

German Insurance Provider Data Show Rise in Doctor’s Visits

A Midwestern Doctor also cites data from the German health insurance provider, BKK, which covers about 10.9 million Germans. One of the BKK board members, Andreas Shöfbeck, discovered concerning trends in their data, which he sent to the Paul-Ehrlich Institut, an agency of the German Federal Ministry of Health.

No good deed goes unpunished in the era of COVID censorship, however, so Shöfbeck was summarily dismissed from the board as thanks for his contribution to public health and safety. The BKK dataset showed 2.05% of COVID jab recipients sought medical care after their jab. A Midwestern Doctor continues:4

“This concerning safety signal prompted … the AfD [Alternative for Germany, a conservative political party] … to file the German equivalent of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act request] for the rest of the insurance data …

Recently AfD obtained AOK Sachsen-Anhalt’s data, which once analyzed, demonstrated that many of the conditions we associate with COVID-19 injuries noticeably increased when the vaccination campaign initiated … [C]onditions which rose five-fold or more were:”

“AfD also submitted a FOIA request to KBV, the association which represents all physicians who receive insurance in Germany and thus the largest insurance dataset available.”

Largest Insurance Dataset Reveal Rise in Sudden Deaths

The larger statutory health insurance dataset from KBV, which encompasses 72 million Germans, show massive increases in sudden and unexpected deaths after the COVID jabs rolled out.

The following graph is from a press conference presentation by data analyst Tom Lausen (see video below; it’s in German, but you can enable English subtitles).5 No mainstream media attended the press conference.

As noted by A Midwestern Doctor:6

“… one way that individuals have analyzed the unusual changes in health following the vaccination campaigns has been to assess how far they fall outside of the expected range of variation …

I did a quick calculation for the above graph and found that 2021’s increase from 2016-2020 was 37.7σ [sigma], while 2022’s was 41.0σ. This is quite a big deal (the rarity of an event happening by chance increases exponentially as the σ increases).

For context, a 7σ event has a 1/390,632,286,180 chance of spontaneously occurring (it is thought to occur once in a billion years) … (I was not able to find a reference on the probabilities for the even higher σ events observed here).

Given these numbers, it is very difficult to argue that these events were not caused by something. In this regard, we are also quite fortunate that while the vaccines were rushed to the market over a period of time far too short to establish safety, that process still took a year.

Because of this lag, it is possible to refute the commonly cited argument that these changes were due to COVID-19 or the lockdowns, as these only occurred in 2020 …”

Dramatic Rise in Heart-Related Fatalities

Lausen also presented a graph for German fatalities per quarter involving cardiac problems.7,8 These six death certificate codes all correspond to “sudden deaths” with cardiac cause. As you can see, heart-related mortality more than doubled in the first quarter of 2021 from the year before, and nearly tripled from the five-year average.

Some have argued that since few shots were given in early 2021, heart-related deaths would not have increased until the second quarter if there was a correlation between the two. However, other data show there was a rapid rise in COVID jab doses administered during the first quarter of 2021 (see graph below), so it’s not outside the realm of possibility that there is a correlation.

Also, as with all-cause mortality, the fact that heart-related deaths did NOT spike during 2020 suggests COVID-19 had nothing to do with the rise that occurred in the first quarter of 2021.

Data Analyst Calls for Immediate End to COVID Jabs

In the conclusion of his presentation, Lausen calls for the immediate suspension of the COVID jabs until correlation between the shots and death can be conclusively ruled out. He also calls for:9

  • Autopsies on all who died suddenly to determine what the massive increase is due to
  • Mandatory recording of the COVID jab status of all deceased individuals, and the brand used, and regular publication of these data
  • Immediate evaluation of the KBV data by German health authorities
  • Informing all doctors and the population at large about the increase in diseases being reported post-jab
  • Regular publication of KB e V data linked with COVID jab data held by the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Robert Koch Institute (Germany’s public health institute)

The Shots Also Have Negative Effectiveness

In addition to not being safe, by any standard, the COVID shots are also negatively effective, meaning after 90 days, both Moderna’s and Pfizer’s shots make you more susceptible to COVID.

As shown in the graphic below, Danish data reveal Omicron cases among the jabbed rose dramatically after three months for both injections, giving Pfizer a negative effectiveness of 76.5% at 90 days’ post-jab and Moderna a 39.3% negative effectiveness.

As noted in a series of Twitter posts by Chris Martenson Ph.D.:10

“If you’ve been vaccinated, and feel like you’ve been getting sick more often than your unvaccinated friends, your impression is correct … The only rational, scientific, ethical, and moral response is to #StoptheShotsNow for everyone under 50 who is healthy. Anything less is profiteering, politics, or personal failure. Or assault and/or homicide if you’re a doctor.”

Florida Governor Calls for Grand Jury Investigation

I’ve reviewed data on side effects and excess mortality in the U.S. in several previous articles, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently did what many of us have been calling for in light of those data.

December 13, 2022, he petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a statewide grand jury investigation of crimes and wrongdoing committed against Floridians related to the COVID-19 jabs.11 According to the governor’s press release:12

“The pharmaceutical industry and the FDA have refused to release patient-level data for independent researchers.

Meanwhile, the COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna have received FDA approval for pediatric and adult patients and continue to be marketed as safe and effective, even though the vaccines do not prevent transmission and adverse events have been minimized and disregarded by the Biden Administration and Big Pharma.

In response, Governor DeSantis has filed a petition to impanel a statewide grand jury to investigate crimes and wrongs in Florida related to the COVID-19 vaccines and further recommend enforcement methods.”

Florida Establishes Independent Public Health Committee

DeSantis is also implementing autopsy surveillance of post-jab sudden deaths, and has established a Public Health Integrity Committee, an independent group of expert researchers “charged with assessing federal decisions, recommendations, and guidance related to public health and health care … to ensure that Florida’s public health policies are tailored for Florida’s communities and priorities.”

The Committee, which will be overseen by Florida surgeon general Dr. Joseph Ladapo, consists of the following members:

As noted in the governor’s press release:13

“The Biden Administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events.

At today’s roundtable the Governor and health experts discussed data covering serious adverse events. These risks include coagulation disorders, acute cardiac injuries, Bell’s palsy, encephalitis, appendicitis, and shingles.

‘Health care professionals should always communicate the risks of a medical intervention to their patients in a manner that is clinically appropriate and meets standards of ethical practice. President Biden and Big Pharma have completely prevented that from happening – it is wrong,’ said Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

‘With these new actions, we will shed light on the forces that have obscured truthful communication about the COVID-19 vaccines.’”

Sources and References

Source: Pfizer’s Shots Aren’t Safe and Were Never Shown To Be – LewRockwell

Coronavirus and the County’s Future (113)  

People Dying Equals Coronavirus?       

By Jon Rappoport (, 23/12/2022

People sick, people dying. How many people? Unknown. Massive lockdowns of Chinese cities. Citizens trying to escape. For the global audience, this equals coronavirus, not because they know the virus is the cause—proof is beside the point. The virus is the cause because IT MUST BE. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?

A plane full of passengers explodes right after take off and falls into the ocean. A faulty engine must be the cause. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE? Missile strike? Ridiculous.

A CIA director is found face down in a marsh along a river. He died of a heart attack. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?

When brutal air pollution in Wuhan obviously brings on lung disease; and when the primary symptom of the coronavirus is supposed to be lung disease; and when citizens of the city have been falling ill and dying from lung disease long before the virus appeared—does this matter?


When governments and corporations have been using THE VIRUS as a cover story to obscure and explain away their crimes against populations, for decades and decades—does this matter?

When previous so-called epidemics—for example, West Nile, SARS, Zika, and Swine Flu—turned out to be complete unproven duds—does this history matter?


A face on a television screen watched by millions of people says CORONAVIRUS. Therefore, case closed.

In 2009, in La Gloria, Mexico, on a giant commercial pig farm, pig feces and urine are allowed to bake and steam and bubble in the sun. These deposits are called lagoons. They’re so large, you can see them from outer space. Toxic chemicals are routinely sprayed and laid out like whipped cream on the lagoons. Workers are falling ill. New workers are brought in to spray even more toxic chemicals. Workers die. Then the Centers for Disease Control sends in their tuned-up virus hunters to look for the germ causing the “mysterious” illness. They claim to find a Swine Flu virus. IT MUST BE THE VIRUS. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE? THE DECAYING PIG SHIT AND URINE? The layers of poisonous chemicals? Don’t be ridiculous.

Later, in the summer of 2009, CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson discovers that the overwhelming percentage of tissue samples from US Swine Flu patients are coming back from labs with no sign of ANY KIND OF FLU. The virus isn’t there.

And yet, of course, we have this, written in the summer of 2009: From

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a patent for, Genetically Engineered Swine Influenza Virus and Uses Thereof (patent #8124101). It was filed in 2005 for approval. The makers of the human variant of the swine flu virus waited until the patent was finally approved in January of 2009, before unleashing the virus into the wild. The makers of the swine flu vaccine had begun the lengthy patenting process long before the swine flu supposedly existed, which means that the outbreak was no accident, and the virus is clearly not natural.

Patents only apply to man-made items, and natural things cannot be patented. The virus conveniently went public only after its vaccine patent was approved, after patiently waiting 3 years for that to happen. The pandemic was declared just five months after the patent was approved, in June of 2009. The tremendous hysteria following the outbreak was promoted by the same groups who had invented this genetically engineered virus. The word ‘invented’ was actually used to describe the virus in the patent application.”

What do you know about that? Back then, there were reports that the Swine Flu Virus—which couldn’t even be found in the overwhelmingly number of US patients—was actually a biowarfare germ. Sound familiar? And yet Swine Flu was a DUD.

Another epidemic that was going to infect the world? West Nile Virus. Another dud. But here from an old article:

“None of these theories [about West Nile] has deterred Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy from urging federal officials to determine if the introduction of WN virus is a terrorist attack. On September 12, 2002, Leahy declared: ‘I think we have to ask ourselves: Is it a coincidence that we’re seeing such an increase in WN virus – or is that something that’s being tested as a biological weapon against us’.” Sound familiar?

And here, from and old article at, a piece about another epidemic dud, SARS 2003 (800 people died out of 7 billion):

“The virus of atypical pneumonia, better known as SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, was created artificially, possibly as a bacteriological weapon, Sergei Kolesnikov, academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, told a press conference in the Siberian town of Irkutsk on Thursday, the Russian RIA Novosti news agency reported.”

“According to Kolesnikov, the virus of atypical pneumonia is a synthesis of the viruses of measles and infectious parotiditis or mumps, the natural compound of which is impossible. This can be done only in a laboratory, he said.”

“Kolesnikov added that in creating bacteriological weapons, a protective anti-viral vaccine is, as a rule, worked out at the same time, so a medicine for atypical pneumonia may soon appear.”

“He did not, however, rule out the possibility that the virus could have spread accidentally as a result of ‘an unsanctioned leakage’ from a biological weapons laboratory.”

Sound familiar? And yet the “epidemic” was a dud.

In 1987, a doctor calls me, while I’m writing my first book, AIDS INC. He tells me he’s built a small AIDS clinic where a group of poverty-stricken patients can rest in clean surroundings, eat nutritious food, and grow beans and sell them for a small amount of money. This doctor is mainstream. He’s given his patients no medical treatment. He knows that THE VIRUS, HIV, is said to be a remorseless killer. But, he tells me, all his patients have recovered; they no longer have symptoms. He’s puzzled, confused, and distraught. He asks me, “What should I do next?” He knows the AIDS drugs are highly toxic. He senses that giving them to his now-healthy patients would bring on a disaster. Oh but you see, IT MUST BE THE VIRUS. WHAT ELSE COULD BE CAUSING THESE PEOPLE TO BECOME SICK IN THE FIRST PLACE? Drinking the water in their villages—water mixed directly with sewage? Hunger? Starvation? Don’t be ridiculous.

In an interview, a famous New York doctor tells me all scientists agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS because, well, the scientists who don’t agree can’t get their findings published. He’s telling me all VISIBLE scientists agree.

Several years ago, during the Zika virus hysteria (another dud epidemic, of microcephaly, that surely would “decimate populations”), researchers in the epicenter, in Brazil, report that only between 10 and 15 percent of Zika patients have any trace of the virus—they can’t find it in the other patients. This amounts to a bald confession that Zika is eliminated as the cause of disease in pregnant women. But no one listens. IT MUST BE THE VIRUS. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?

Well, it turns out it could be ANY INJURY OF ANY KIND TO A PREGNANT MOTHER—causing her baby to be born with a smaller head and brain damage, called microcephaly.

But here, in a 2016 article from, we have this:

“It’s [Zika virus] being spread by genetically engineered mosquitos. Is it the latest example of US biowarfare? America’s sordid history suggests it.” If it was being spread in that fashion, it wasn’t working to cause disease. It was a failure. BUT IT MUST BE THE VIRUS. WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?

And of course, the World Health organization hit the hysteria button at the time. From, January 28, 2016:

“The World Health Organization will convene an emergency committee in Geneva on Monday to discuss the mosquito-borne Zika virus, which the organization’s head said is spreading ‘explosively’ and which many doctors and health officials believe is linked to an unprecedented outbreak of babies born with small heads in Brazil…’The level of alarm is extremely high,’ WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said in remarks to the public-health agency’s executive board…WHO’s announcement underscores the speed with which a virus that began as an obscure tropical malady afflicting Africa and then several remote Western Pacific islands has transformed into a major international health concern, particularly in the Americas.”

Dud. If WHO could squeeze out more fear, NOW, in 2020, about an ever-expanding Zika crisis, don’t you think they would? Even THEY’VE given up the ghost on that campaign.


It could be lie after titanic lie.

Coronavirus and the County’s Future (112)          

Dr. Fauci’s Amnesia

Decades ago, he drove a paradigm shift in pandemic response that focused on controlling the entire human population; his later advocacy of lockdowns and vaccine mandates implemented this vision.

Aaron Kheriaty, MD


Image for article: Dr. Fauci's Amnesia

What follows is my farewell homage to Anthony Fauci, on the occasion of his retirement, published yesterday in Compact magazine. Compact, founded by my friends Sohrab Ahmahri and Matthew Schmitz, is among the best journals out there—thoughtful, in-depth articles on the crucial issues of our time. Independent journalism is more important now than ever, so take a look at Compact and consider subscribing to it here.

Last week, The New York Times published a guest essay in praise of Dr. Anthony Fauci, written by Dr. Anthony Fauci. In this auto-hagiography, Fauci, who until recently served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, or NAIAD, and as President Biden’s chief medical adviser, attempted to rewrite recent history.

“I never aspired to a major administrative position and relished my identity as a hands-on physician and clinical researcher,” wrote the man who at the height of the pandemic found time to pose for an InStyle fashion shoot. Fauci added: “I ‌‌always speak the unvarnished truth to ‌presidents and other senior government officials, even when such truths may be uncomfortable or politically inconvenient, because extraordinary things can happen when science and politics work hand in hand.” Just so: Extraordinary things certainly have happened under his watch when science and politics fused.

It was a remarkable piece of mainstream-media-powered mendacity—and a reminder of Fauci’s mastery of the ways of contemporary power. It’s that savvy that has allowed Fauci to maintain his unprecedented position of power and influence for almost four decades at the NIAID division of the National Institutes of Health, notwithstanding his failures and dangerous power-grabs during the AIDS epidemic and the Covid pandemic. And it’s what impelled me to join a lawsuit against him in Missouri v. Bidencharging that Fauci and other senior officials in the administration violated the First Amendment’s free-speech protections by colluding with social-media companies to censor information that questioned the government’s favored Covid policies.

When the pandemic arrived, we saw a concerted effort to anoint Fauci the public face of the nation’s health authorities. Many Americans, especially our media and tech gatekeepers, hoped that Fauci, the steady man of science, could play foil to the erratic President Donald Trump in those harried news conferences of early 2020. The nation—indeed, the world—looked to this man to keep his hand on the rudder and guide us calmly through the pandemic storm.

Fauci was ready for his moment in the sun. A consummate DC insider, he had cultivated a power base in Washington and the media for decades. He served in several administrations, under both parties, and craftily used the AIDS epidemic to increase funding for NIAID and gain enormous control over biomedical research in the United States. He also cultivated media allies, who were eager for access to Fauci’s insider scoop when the pandemic broke.

Fauci’s influence on the recent US pandemic response extends back decades. In 1989, Fauci organized a conference in Washington to introduce a novel concept: a biosecurity threat. People had worried about biological weapons prior to 1989, of course, but Fauci’s conference introduced a consequential reframing: The potential threat was no longer a novel pathogen, such as a virus or bacteria, whether of natural origin or developed as a bioweapon. Rather, the new paradigm focused instead on humanity as a microbial population vector. The challenge, in other words, was that people functioned as a conveyance apparatus for viruses or bacteria.

Grasping this point goes a long way toward helping us understand our disastrous Covid response. In Fauci’s frame, the human population itself becomes a dangerous problem to be solved by experts—by a new caste of technocrats who must be granted unprecedented powers to control their fellow human beings. This biosecurity model became America’s infectious-disease-response policy following the Anthrax attacks shortly after 9/11. That’s when we began to hear the language of pandemic “countermeasures”—which isn’t a medical term, but the jargon of spycraft and soldiering.

As Ashley Rindsberg has documented, contrary to popular opinion, far from being a public health expert, since 2003 Fauci has sat atop America’s bio-defense infrastructure—wielding the enormous post-9/11 powers and budget this brought to his previously obscure NAIAD, one of 27 divisions at the NIH.

In Fauci’s reconfigured agency, with no oversight structure above him, the distinction between biodefense and scientific research collapsed. As Rindsberg explains: “Biodefense projects that formerly would have fallen under the authority of military or intelligence agencies were now under his direct supervision.” This also explains why Fauci is the highest paid federal employee, earning more than the US president, our four-star generals, senators, and Supreme Court justices, and why he makes roughly double the salary of his nominal superior, the NIH director—a fact that indicates who really holds sway over biomedical research funding in the United States.

It took more than 20 years, but the biosecurity approach became the default strategy during the Covid pandemic. Over the last three years, the biomedical-security paradigm has been rolled out on a global scale, shaping what I dubbed our New Abnormal. Recall how the phrase “the new normal” emerged almost immediately in the initial weeks of the pandemic, and how many ordinary social norms and expectations were rebranded as dangerous. In the first month of Covid, Fauci even suggested that perhaps we would never again go back to shaking hands.

Authoritarian lockdowns, school closures, vaccine and mask mandates, vaccine passports, and other assorted biosecurity measures proved ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus, and thus failed to achieve their intended goals. Instead, these previously untested policies inflicted enormous collateral damage. The full measure of these harms—the medical, psychological, and spiritual carnage—will take decades to unpack, though there is already plenty of available evidence to sift through.

The Missouri v. Biden case, in which I’m one of the plaintiffs, is a First Amendment free-speech lawsuit alleging that government officials across at least 17 different federal agencies leaned on social-media companies to suppress free speech, especially when it involves the government’s pandemic response. During his recent deposition in our case, Fauci confirmed what many suspected regarding the origins of lockdowns—namely, that the decision to lock down wasn’t based on empirical data, but on the word of the Chinese authorities as conveyed by Fauci’s deputy at NIAID, Clifford Lane. Indeed, in February 2020 there was no empirical data for this previously untested intervention, only flawed and now-disproved predictive computer models, like that of the Imperial College London, which were off by several orders of magnitude.

Tocqueville warned that democracy contains built-in vulnerabilities that can lead democratic nations into despotism. In our case, that vulnerability had a name and a representative figure: Anthony Fauci, an official who looked to a totalitarian state as the exemplar for managing a pandemic. The first state-ordered lockdown occurred in Wuhan and nearby Chinese cities. In mid-February 2020, the World Health Organization sent a delegation to China to investigate Covid. As the US delegate, Fauci dispatched Lane, his deputy.

Immediately upon returning, Lane convinced Fauci the United States should emulate China’s response. Given his adoption of the biosecurity model more than 20 years earlier, Fauci probably didn’t take much convincing. Chinese authorities told the WHO delegation that they had contained the virus through draconian lockdowns—a claim now clearly demonstrated to have been false. Had lockdowns worked in China as advertised in February 2020, we wouldn’t be seeing today record numbers of cases in China, notwithstanding the Communist Party’s increasingly terrifying and dystopian measures.

Given China’s historical pattern of falsified information, Lane and Fauci should have approached this intel with skepticism. After all, lockdowns were wholly untested and unprecedented. But as one of our lawyers in the case, Jenin Younes of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, put it, Fauci “was apparently willing to base his lockdown advocacy on the observations of a single guy relying on reports from a dictator.” Not exactly a double-blind randomized trial level of evidence for a man who identifies himself with The Science.

Days after Lane returned, the WHO published its report praising China’s strategy. Uncritically echoing Chinese propaganda, the report claimed: “China’s uncompromising and rigorous use of non-pharmaceutical measures to contain transmission of the COVID-19 virus in multiple settings provides vital lessons for the global response. This rather unique and unprecedented public health response in China reversed the escalating cases.”

Lockdowns were first imposed in the West in Italy, then adopted at the recommendation of Fauci and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Deborah Birx in the United States. Within weeks, the whole world was locked down. From the outset, the evidential basis for this global policy catastrophe was paper-thin. Fauci knew this—or at least, he should have. But what China had done was aligned with his own reframing of public health as management of biosecurity threats through the control of entire populations. Indeed, to this day, he is prepared to support the ongoing Chinese lockdowns if they function as a useful fulcrum to coerce compliance with other public-health mandates.

After bringing China’s unprecedented authoritarian measures to the United States, Fauci next resolved that the entire population must be vaccinated. To this end, the psychological strain of prolonged lockdowns and school closures offered useful leverage: If you wanted to avoid further forced isolation, it was up to you to get the jabs. Pressing this logic to its logical conclusion, as recently as last month Fauci told CNN that the continued lockdowns in China could be justified, at least for a period of time, if the goal was to force vaccine compliance: “If the purpose is, ‘Let’s get all the people vaccinated, particularly the elderly,’ then OK.”

Fauci’s promotion of mass vaccination was ideologically of a piece with his support for lockdowns. Rather than targeting the response at those most vulnerable to the virus, both policies sought a one-size-fits-all approach to control the behavior of the entire population. However, he likely had other reasons for aggressively pushing the vaccines. Most people are still unaware that NIAID, Fauci’s division of the NIH, co-owns the patent on the Moderna vaccine, among thousands of other pharma patents.

Rather than providing grants to university-based investigators to run the clinical trials on their own Moderna vaccine, the NIH conducted this research internally, a clear conflict of interest. NIAID will earn millions from this vaccine’s revenue, with several NIH employees (and their heirs) personally receiving up to $150,000 annually from Moderna vaccine sales. Indeed, the NIH went to bat in a lawsuit with the company to fight for its share of the patent. Big money is at stake: The Government Accountability Office estimated recently that the NIH has earned $2 billion in royalties since 1991 from its patents for FDA-approved drugs.

In May 2022, documents obtained by a FOIA request from Open the Books, a nonprofit organization dedicated to investigating and disclosing government expenditures, revealed that NIH director Francis Collins, Fauci, and Lane all received royalties from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and 2014. Open the Books estimates that from 2010 to 2020, third parties paid more than $350 million in royalties to NIH and its scientists, who are credited as co-inventors. In the years they received payments, Collins, Fauci, and Lane were administrators, not researchers, at the NIH, with no plausible claim to serving as scientific co-discoverers. The exact amount they earned from royalties was redacted from the released documents.

Many people have asked me why more scientists failed to challenge our misguided Covid policies, which were often presented to the public without even the pretense of scientific rigor. The answer is that the vast majority of biomedical research in the United States is underwritten by the NIH, with funding controlled by a small group of NIH insiders like Fauci—many of whom stay in power for decades.

NIH sinecures allow the likes of Fauci to wield a vast power over primary investigators and their teams of university researchers, permitting one man to shape the entire research agenda of the field for a generation or more. University researchers and their institutions were thus easily controlled by the threat of losing grant money should they challenge Fauci’s preferred policies. For this reason alone, he should never have opined on public-health policies, a clear conflict of interest. His job as NAIAD director was always to fund research, never to make or advise on public-health measures. Efforts to enthrone him as America’s personal public-health czar were thus misconceived from the outset.

During his deposition in November, Fauci appeared to be suffering from a novel syndrome—perhaps a form of long Covid or a side-effect of multiple boosters—characterized by sudden-onset amnesia about much of what he had done during the pandemic. For example, he couldn’t cite a single study that influenced him changing his mind about masking. He was sure that there were many such studies, naturally, but the specifics were lost in the fog.

Recall that early in the pandemic, Fauci had repeatedly told the public not to wear masks. For example, he wrote in a Feb. 5, 2020, email that “the typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material.” He later admitted in an interview with Mark Zuckerberg that this was a “noble lie” to save masks, which were in short supply, for front-line health workers. Two months after advising against masks, he changed his mind, promoting them for symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike on PBS News Hour and elsewhere in the media.

During the deposition, he demonstrated how thoroughly the mystery studies—none of which he could remember—had convinced him in favor of masks. According to the report of Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, when the court reporter sneezed, Fauci nearly jumped out of his seat. Nobody in the room was masked, including Fauci. The court reporter explained it was merely her allergies, but Fauci would have none of it. As another person who was in the room reported, Fauci “asked her to put on a mask and said that he was uncomfortable, ‘and the last thing in the world I want right now is to get Covid.’ So she had to wear a mask the whole rest of the time.”

While all this was unfolding in the deposition room, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry kept a copy of Robert Kennedy Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci on the table in front of him, and occasionally flipped through it as he questioned Dr. Fauci. The book, which has sold more than 1 million copies, documents in excruciating detail the corruption of the public-health system under Fauci’s 38-year reign as director of NIAID, beginning with his disastrous tenure during the AIDS epidemic. No mainstream outlet has reviewed the book, even to attempt to discredit its claims. Fauci continues to have the legacy media eating from the palm of his hand, as this week’s self-serving essay in the New York Times attests.

Also during the deposition, Fauci showed foggy recall on his role in our case’s central allegation: He claimed he couldn’t remember many details about his involvement in the government’s social-media censorship campaigns, which have been described in detail in our legal filings and other recent investigative reports. By his own description, Fauci was too busy developing a vaccine that saved millions of lives to care about petty matters like what happens on Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube.

The amnestic tedium continued for seven hours. Fauci repeated the phrase “I don’t recall” 178 times during the deposition. Two of the other co-plaintiffs, my friends Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, were co-authors with Sunetra Gupta of the Great Barrington Declaration. Fauci couldn’t remember much about that signal document, either, which argued for focused protection instead of the one-size-fits-all lockdowns and school closures, and garnered 930,000 signatures from physicians, public-health experts, and other concerned health professionals and citizens in 2020.

But Fauci had little time to pay attention to such trivial matters, as he explained: “I have a very busy day job running a $6 billion institute. I don’t have time to worry about things like the Great Barrington Declaration.” However, records show that he did indeed spend considerable time worrying about it in 2020. On Oct. 8, 2020, NIH Director Francis Collins emailed Fauci asking him to coordinate a “quick and devastating takedown” to discredit the authors of the declaration (distinguished epidemiologists from Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford). Fauci replied to and acted upon Collins’s note right away. He later emailed Birx on Oct. 16, 2020, saying that he had “come out very strongly against the Great Barrington Declaration.” But last month in his deposition, his recall for these signal events of 2020 apparently failed him.

Fauci’s memory, then, appears to have declined over the past two trying years. If his faculties are indeed beginning to fade, then perhaps his recent retirement was well-timed. He had quite a run, and as he put it recently in an interview, he gave it his all and left everything on the field. He played his game right up to the final buzzer.

Farewell, Dr. Fauci.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (111)

Why We Refused to Use Vax Passports and What Happened Next

“Within two weeks of that sign going up, our congregation almost doubled in size, on a weekly basis.”


Fear of the unknown was rife when the news of a novel virus first came to our shores in Australia. However, there was a unity across the country and a desire to deal with the threat appropriately.  A general trust in our leaders was evident and an almost wartime commitment to do our bit to not overwhelm our hospitals.  “Just a few weeks to flatten the curve.” Little did we know that that same fear and unity would be used for political advantage, to generate division and usher in an unjustified authoritarianism, the likes of which Australia had never seen before.  My state of Victoria would be known as the lockdown capital of the world. 

A never before used mRNA vaccine to deal with a novel virus was impressively fast-tracked and released.  Although offering some help, it was promoted as safe and effective and disappointed on both counts.  On the eve of its release, evangelicals were encouraged to be thankful and roll up their sleeves.  Denominations instructed their ministers and elders to urge their people “to have themselves vaccinated at the earliest opportunity.”  I have no medical expertise but I wasn’t sure how even the medically informed could be sure of the novel vaccine’s efficacy or safety.  As it turned out, experts are now admitting there was little evidence that it reduced transmission.  Many countries are now winding back recommendations due to serious side effects particularly, but not exclusively, impacting the young.  

Things really came to a head when vaccine mandates were introduced.  As with lockdowns, people were affected differently.  Some got jabbed and got on with life.  Others resisted (including quite a number who had suffered physical abuse and had regained bodily autonomy).  Some happily rolled up their sleeves while others were coerced and subsequently felt violated.  Still, others abstained and endured a long and daily trauma of exclusions, loss of livelihoods, taunts and threats.  A not insignificant number also rolled up their sleeves and were never the same again (their voices were often ignored and silenced as an embarrassment).

A few pastors saw early what was on the horizon and released a document called the Ezekiel Declaration to protest the impending and unjust vaccine mandates and the impact they would have on individual, community and church life.  It quickly attracted almost 30,000 signatures including 3,000 church leaders!  Then for maybe the only time during the pandemic, a few influential Christian leaders, across denominations, united to make a stand.  Over the space of two days, a coordinated flurry of articles appeared slamming this Ezekiel Declaration.  The declaration was considered not only to be bad in tone but not effusive enough about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.  These writers managed to extinguish its momentum and so too the opportunity for the church to speak up against the coming coercion.

I watched with dismay, over the space of barely two months, how the evangelical consensus went from claiming ‘mandates wouldn’t happen’, to ‘they wouldn’t happen in church’, to ‘if they did that would be a line in the sand’, to ‘it was only a temporary inconvenience’, to ‘just love one another by getting jabbed and going along with segregated services’.  Several talkfests from key leaders were released to cajole the church to go along with what only a few months earlier was deemed unconscionable. 

As I watched the wider church’s resolve quickly crumble. I was eager for my own church to draw a line in the sand, lest we get caught up with the fast-forming compromise and consensus.  I was pleased that our elders agreed that conscience was important and that we wouldn’t segregate our services but remain open to all without distinction.  I was also encouraged when the Presbyterian Church of Australia put out a statement (one of the very few to do so) honouring conscience and expressing a desire not to make use of vaccine mandates.

After contending (with a few others) within our State denomination, against the segregation of church entry, I then fought even harder not to go the way of many denominations and shut out the unvaccinated from all forms of ministry (from Bible reading to playing musical instruments to even putting flowers in a vase). It was quite a feat, but at this point, churches were segregating even harder than Premier Daniel Andrews, beyond what had been prescribed.  After a two-week struggle, by the grace of God, the Victorian Presbyterian church avoided that particular stain.

In response to the difficult times, including the loss of some of our own church leaders, we had an evening of prayer asking God to hold us together as a congregation and to provide what was lacking. 

This all led to one decision that would massively impact our local church.  Three things led to this decision: 

  1. I noticed the increasing suffering of the unvaccinated.  After 260+ days of extreme lockdowns which severely impacted many, when there was finally hope of release, they were suddenly faced with the trauma of vaccine mandates. Additionally the unvaccinated were demonised, stigmatised and cut off from family, friends, cafes and commerce.  As a cruel act of coercion, people were forced out of their jobs and even barred from volunteer services.  On top of that many found that their own churches joined in and decided to lock them out of worship services and ministry.  This added to the perception of some, that churches had sold out their core principles, just like the Opportunity Shops who were refusing service to the unvaccinated in a time of need.
  2. I noticed in a general sense where the unvaccinated were provided for or included better it was done quietly, almost embarrassingly and even reluctantly in some cases.    
  3. I was reminded of what made Jesus and the great apostle Paul angry, and I mean really angry, and that was when anyone was unfairly excluded or segregated.  Jesus was indignant when children were held back (Mark 10:14) and turned over tables when the Gentiles’ place of worship was replaced with a shop (“My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations!” (Mark 11:17). When the Judaizers wanted to divide over a medical procedure (circumcision) Paul strongly opposed Peter to his face and suggested they go the whole way and castrate themselves (Gal 5:12).  On the flip side Paul’s life mission was to bring in those who were not previously included (Rom 15:20). Jesus was drawn like a magnet to those whom society and religious leaders urged him to avoid – the outcasts (Matt 20:31-32).

I resolved therefore to not go along with vaccine mandates and segregation but also to tell whoever would listen, especially those who had become the new lepers –  we would remain open and welcome to all, without distinction.  I determined to let it be known for the church here that vaccination would not be a thing and that Jesus was everything.

Then going against the prevailing winds I simply put up a sign on our Church’s Facebook site that said:  “No Passports! All welcome to all services.”

This unexpectedly went viral and was shared around.  We got almost 20,000 views!  Within two weeks of that sign going up, our congregation almost doubled in size, on a weekly basis.

The new people didn’t know that the other new people were new and were delighted to find they could finally talk about what was going on, what they had been through including being shut out of society and their own prolonged suffering (as they talked to each other I was given undeserved credit for training my people so well.)   Quite a number had not been to church in decades or ever and it was a privilege to be preaching to the unconverted.  I don’t think in my ministry, I have ever led so many individuals through Christianity Explained simultaneously.

These are not church hoppers or shoppers.  They’re either serious seekers or have come fully mature and ready to serve.  They’ve already gone on cleaning rosters and are attending Bible studies.  More than half of the people at a recent working bee weren’t at this church a year ago.  A common refrain is that they came to us because we were an open door but they stayed with us because the Bible was our authority and for the first time, sometimes, they are hearing meaty teaching.

Some stayed for a time of healing and then returned, strengthened, to their places of ministry or found closer biblical fellowships but many (30+) are still with us.  For the next six months, we had new visitors every week and even now opportunities and new connections arise almost weekly in this new mission field of suffering people.  We also became known as a church that would take people’s Covid distress seriously.  Struggling (and sometimes suicidal) people from all around the State would contact us because we understood their pain and didn’t dismiss them as anti-vaxxers or problematic.  The sheer number of pastoral opportunities was exhausting but each one was also a deep privilege to be entrusted with.

Though there were definitely challenges along the way, the result has been a mutual blessing under God. I only wish it hadn’t seemed so radical at the time.  (It should be acknowledged that God’s particular grace and mercy and blessing to us here was not everyone’s experience.  Others I know of, in ministry, who have spoken up, have faced strong opposition and have been made pariahs or even removed from ministry.)  I am thankful to God for all who have strengthened and encouraged us, along the way, to remain a place that is open to all and not divide or ban the uncertified.

Our church has seen a whole lot of new people from Anglicans to Pentecostals and even the unchurched join us but we have all come to the one Jesus, who said “All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). 

As one friend wrote recently “The isolation & abandonment so many of us went through was incredibly traumatic. I can never forget it.”  Another wrote, “Thank you. Your church was literally a beacon of hope during that dark time.”  My hope is that the church would reflect; repent; reach out to those impacted and never again seem so eager to be respectable that they lose their distinctive prophetic voice – including being a voice for justice.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (110)

Estimated 50% of Americans now Question Vaccine Safety

By Joseph Mercola (, 28/11/2022


  • This week, we celebrate our 13th anniversary of Vaccine Awareness Week. Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) summarizes some of the high and low points we’ve experienced over the past year
  • The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has now logged over 1.4 million adverse events associated with the COVID-19 shots, including more than 30,000 deaths, half of which are from the United States. No other vaccine has ever caused as many injuries
  • While the harms are undeniable, health authorities are still doing what they can to deny the risks associated with the COVID shots. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fought for 15 months to avoid releasing V-Safe data. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also refusing to release autopsy reports of those who died post-jab
  • The culture wars that are going on in the world are really about collectivism versus individualism. The globalist cabal are desperately trying to convince countries to adopt a collectivist philosophy, which they refer to as “prosociality,” and move away from respect for the individual and individual rights. Nowhere is this currently more apparent than in the medical field and public health policy.

As usual, I will match all donations made to the NVIC during this week, so it’s a great time to contribute, as each dollar you give will be doubled. As a company, we’ve supported the NVIC for 14 years. In 2023, it’ll be 15 years since I made the commitment to support this extraordinary charitable organization, which fights for protection of informed consent rights and medical freedom like no other.

Onslaught of COVID Shot Injuries

Needless to say, it’s been a rough couple of years in terms of defending the human right to autonomy and medical freedom. Unconstitutional and dangerous COVID shot mandates have resulted in the greatest avalanche of medically-induced injuries ever seen. As explained by Fisher:

“It was parents of DPT vaccine-injured children [who] launched the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in this country — the modern vaccine safety and informed consent movement — because, really, we owe a debt of gratitude to the parents, doctors and scientists back in the 1800s and early 1900s [who] rang the first warning bell about the risks associated with the smallpox vaccine — one of the most reactive vaccines that has ever been used — until the COVID shots.

The statistics in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on MedAlerts, which has been operating since 2003 … has logged in over 1.4 million adverse events associated with the COVID-19 shots and over 30,000 deaths. About 15,000 of those death reports are from the United States, because the VAER system also accepts reports from foreign countries that use U.S. vaccines.

There’s never been a vaccine that has generated that kind of adverse event reporting ever … at least since 1990 when they started [operating] VAERS. The VAER system was created under the [1986] National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

The VAER system was a unique contribution that we [parents of vaccine-injured children] made. We insisted [on] a centralized vaccine adverse event reporting system that was transparently open to the public, accessible by the public, and that the public could report reactions [to], not just doctors.

The 1.4 million adverse events associated with COVID ‘vaccines’ is the highest number ever reported for a vaccine since 1990, and comprises about half of all reports that have been made to VAERS since 1990. It’s a stunning statistic.

It’s something they cannot deny, even though they try to say, ‘Well, not everything that’s reported is causally associated with the vaccines.’ Of course, they don’t know how many are or are not. The stark fact that more than half of the reports in VAERS have been made for COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ is something that can’t be denied.”

Lies and Cover-Ups

While the harms are undeniable, based on the statistics, health authorities are still doing what they can to deny the risks associated with the COVID shots. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fought for 15 months to avoid releasing V-Safe data.1,2 They eventually lost the fight and the data confirm what we’re seeing in VAERS.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is also refusing to release autopsy reports,3 even though those reports can be de-identified. They also will not release de-identified information on myocarditis, which is strongly associated with the COVID shots.

“When I look back at the last three years of this COVID pandemic, all I see are lies and cover-ups,” Fisher says. “It breaks my heart. We tried for many, many decades, we presented [information] to state legislatures, to the federal government, to the CDC, NIH [National Institutes of Health], FDA.

I sat on government vaccine advisory committees begging them to do the science, the biological mechanism work that would inform the policy makers about what happens in the body when vaccines are injected. They refused to do that work so they could identify people who are genetically, biologically and environmentally at high risk for having a vaccine reaction.

They refused to reform the system that would take out the vaccine safety oversight mechanism from HHS [Health and Human Services], which has the legal responsibility for developing vaccines, for regulating vaccines, for making policy for vaccines, and also has the safety oversight mechanism.

There is so much corruption now in this mass vaccination system — because it has been hijacked by Pharma and because Congress refused to have oversight on the whole vaccine program. They have allowed Pharma to hijack the system … There were failures all along, for 40 years, failures to deal with the problem of conflicts of interest within the mass vaccination program …

When I finally realized after several decades that they had absolutely no intention of fixing anything, or of learning, or trying to screen out people, that they didn’t care [about injuries] — that’s when I realized that this was a much bigger problem than I originally had thought when we were looking at just DPT vaccine …

These public-private partnerships that have grown and been allowed by Congress have corrupted the system. You cannot have the same people who are profiting from the product in charge of making policy, regulating and [conducting] oversight on the safety of the product.”

Obedient Self-Sacrifice Is the New Virtue

Fisher cites The Lancet Commission’s report on “Lessons for the Future of the COVID-19 Pandemic,”4 and an accompanying editorial, “COVID-19: The Case for Prosociality,”5 both of which are published in the October 8, 2022, issue of The Lancet. The Commission’s report politicizes the COVID pandemic response and both it and the editorial try to make a case for what the authors call “prosociality.”

“What they want is for all countries to adopt a collectivist philosophy and move away from focusing on the individual,” Fisher explains. “The culture wars that are going on in the world are really about collectivism versus individualism. The United States of America was founded on the basic concept that the individual has rights which limit the power of the state.

That’s why we have a Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, and why we have had in this country respect for freedom of thought, speech, conscience, religious belief and assembly — all of those things in the Bill of Rights that allow the individual to limit the power of the state.

These people, and I’m talking basically the World Health Organization, these folks want a major reorganization and a refocus on the collectivist ideology, which means that the individual is less important than the state. What they’re calling for is more power and more money to be given to the WHO so that future pandemics can be handled better.

One of the top things they focus on is the fact that in the societies that are more individualistic — like the U.S. and Europe, [and] have more civil liberties, more respect for the individual — there was disobedience. People protested, people would not agree uniformly to masking and lockdowns and vaccination.

They want more power and more money to create basically a quasi-world government that is led by WHO, by public health officials. Reading this report, I could not believe that they think they can get away with this. It is completely political. It is not scientific or medical.

They blame everybody but themselves for the pandemic response that has ruined economies, that has affected the mental health and the educational status of children and adults, and has caused such devastation …

We better start realizing that what happened with COVID had as much to do with politics and ideology as it did about a virus. If you look at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has called for The Great Reset of society, it’s the same thing that was said in this Lancet Commission report.

They [authors of the report] talk about hiring more behavioral psychologists and others to persuade people to be more obedient the next time around. It’s really shocking.”

Healthy Policy Based on False Assumptions and Lies

Surveys now show trust in public health officials is on the decline, which should come as no surprise considering how they’ve flip-flopped on their policies and denied easily provable facts. One of the biggest lies perpetuated was that the COVID shots would prevent infection and transmission.

Everybody assumed this was the case, as all other vaccines have been promoted as a way to prevent infection and transmission. Only those who actually read the FDA briefing document issued at the very beginning, like Fisher and I did, saw that manufacturers were only required to prove a 50% efficacy in preventing severe COVID disease — not in preventing infection and transmission.

“Only if you looked at that would you realize, from the get-go, that they knew the vaccines were not going to prevent infection and transmission,” Fisher says.

They never tested it, and without testing, no claims can be made whatsoever. And yet that’s what they did. They claimed the shots would stop COVID, that you wouldn’t get sick or spread it to others. This was the sole premise behind the vaccine passports. Vaccination was supposed to be a way to make you “safe” to be around. They pushed this lie for all it was worth, knowing they didn’t have a scientific leg to stand on.

Another way by which health authorities deceived the public into thinking the shots would work like a traditional vaccine was by changing the very definition of a vaccine. No longer is a “vaccine” something that actually prevents infection and transmission of disease. Rather, it’s now defined as something that triggers an “immune response,” which may or may not prevent disease.

Clearly, they knew what they were doing and they developed a strategy to deceive the public in a variety of different ways.

They also misled people into thinking the shots were far more effective than they were by conflating relative and absolute risk. While the relative risk reduction was around 95%, the absolute risk reduction was below 1%.6 As noted by Fisher, the idea of vaccine-induced herd immunity is also terribly flawed, and we’ve certainly seen that with the COVID shots.

Modern Day Child Sacrifice

The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that has pushed these lethal and completely useless COVID shots on young children. Fortunately, uptake in this age group has been low. As of July 20, 2022, only 2.8% of children under 5 had received at least one dose.7

That may soon change, however, as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously voted, October 20, 2022, to add the COVID shot to the recommended CDC’s vaccination schedules for both children and adults.8

An estimated 50% of the American population now question vaccination, and not just the COVID shots. The distrust is also spilling over into other vaccines.

The day before that, October 19, ACIP also recommended the shots become part of the CDC’s Vaccines for Children Program (VFC),9 a federal entitlement program that pays for vaccines for children who don’t have insurance. So, clearly, the FDA and CDC have no intention of coming clean about the dangers of these shots.

They may have miscalculated their ability to keep people brainwashed, however. Fisher estimates that about half of the American population now question vaccination, and not just the COVID shots. The distrust is also spilling over into other vaccines.

Censorship Has Had Lethal Consequences

The truth would be even more widespread were it not for Big Tech censoring public conversations about COVID and COVID shots that criticize government public health policies and laws. Yes, it’s illegal and unconstitutional for government officials to violate freedom of speech and censor by proxy, using private companies to do their dirty work, but they’re doing it anyway. Fisher continues:

“One of the reasons they were successful too in these last three years is because they shut down all [dissenting voices] … There was an article published in The Lancet in March 2021, talking about how these anti-vaccine groups, these groups criticizing the COVID vaccine, how they were to blame for [public health officials] not being able to get everybody to line up and take this vaccine.

NVIC was deplatformed in March 2021 by Facebook and Instagram. Then we were deplatformed by Twitter. Then we were deplatformed by YouTube. All of my commentaries for over a decade, completely gone.

Then PayPal, in December 2021 … in the midst of our year-end fundraising campaign – without warning one night blocked all donations to NVIC, completely tanking our fundraising campaign.

We were completely taken off of social media in 2021. This hampers the ability of people who have history, who have knowledge, who have something to say from being able to communicate in the public square. Online access is the new 21st century public square. We’re completely blocked from communicating with the majority of people here or in other countries.”

Around the World People Are Standing Up for Health Freedom

But despite the heavy-handed censorship, people around the world are still waking up to what’s happening. More and more people are starting to realize that the COVID pandemic wasn’t so much about responding to infectious disease as it was about manipulating people into accepting a new world order.

“What has gladdened my heart in the last few years has been to see the millions of people who stood up in the physical public squares in London, Berlin, Rome and Amsterdam. In so many places around the world, including Canada, people stood up for their freedom, for their right to be able to assemble, to be able to have free speech and to be able to say no to a vaccine they considered too dangerous.

You can tell from reports, these [COVID] lessons-learned reports, that are coming out from big universities, these doctors are furious that a significant portion of the public dared to stand up in public and fight for their freedom. This is a good sign for us. It means that the spirit of freedom that lives in the hearts of so many people around the world is not dead. It is not gone.

This is something that we can build on because all we’re asking for is the right to have full information about these pharmaceutical products, and be able to make an informed and voluntary decision. Nobody’s telling people not to do it. Nobody’s telling people that you shouldn’t make vaccines.

I believe in the free market system, and I believe that a product should be subject to the forces of the marketplace. It shouldn’t be forced on anybody. If people want the product, that’s their choice.

But they shouldn’t force people to do something that’s against their conscience, against their intellectual analysis of the product … People shouldn’t be forced to put their physical health at risk if they believe that they’re going to be harmed by it. That’s tyranny …

We get letters from people who were heads of their families, who were responsible for feeding and housing their families. They were made to make this Faustian choice between putting their health at risk by getting that vaccine … or of losing their job and not being able to provide for their family. Literally, families went bankrupt.

On top of all of this deception and cover up, they want to muzzle anybody who brings up these issues. If you don’t learn from your experience, you’re going to repeat it. This is why reports like the Lancet Commission report are so dangerous. All they want to do is more of the same, the next time around, and force more people to salute smartly.”

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (109)

Commission Chief Faces Corruption Probe over Pfizer Contracts

By Martin Jay (, 22/11/2022

The EU can’t have its own puppets swashbuckling the high life and doing their own thing, can they?

Is it possible that the President of the European commission, Ursula von der Leyen is not quite as squeaky clean as some might assume? Do such lightweights, who define themselves by how much they fail to achieve, who come from the bowels of political obscurity in Germany rise to such prominence without a little help from powerful elites, masonic links and corrupt corporations?

The answer is of course. In fact, within the scope of the European Union and its institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg, this is largely the tradition: to either install puppets who serve powerful governments and their corrupt interests, or giant industry itself. Corruption rules.

And so it should come as little surprise that Ursula has been implicated in playing a murky role in a 35bn euro vaccine deal which stinks so much that it has the very dark powers in Brussels are working over-time on a damage limitation plan to save the collective neck of the EU as it heads towards the abyss: its own elections in 2024, which are expected to have all time low voter turn out with far-right groups making a killing in the European parliament.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an “investigation” into the EU’s coronavirus vaccine purchases, an announcement that will throw a spotlight on Ursula von der Leyen’s odd behaviour at that time, according to probably the most pro-establishment media outlet in Brussels, Politico.

The media outlet is so supportive and compliant to the EU that the fact that its journalists are breaking the story is important as it indicates that it is the EU hidden powers, the cabal in Brussels and Luxembourg which are never in the media sphere, which are worried about von der Leyen and her murky deals.

It’s unclear why The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which claims to be an independent EU body responsible for investigating and prosecuting financial crimes, including fraud, money laundering and corruption, is handling the case when traditionally it would be OLAF – the EU’s own internal anti-fraud unit.

In the past OLAF has always been accused of not being objective enough in its investigations, often protecting high level EU officials. Are the powers that be trying to actually do the unthinkable and genuinely investigate von der Leyen for corruption?

Until this point, the whole story is opaque, without even the outline of a case.

The EPPO did not specify who was being investigated, or which contracts were the subject of inquiry. But that said, two other watchdog agencies have brought attention to the von der Leyen – Pfizer deal, probably one of these being OLAF.

Yet OLAF or the EPPO, like any EU institutions, are not exempt from being manipulated by national member states’ interests and in this case it appears that the Belgians have an axe to grind, with, at this stage, only intercepted text messages to go on.

Belgian Socialist member of European Parliament (MEP) Kathleen van Brempt said that “several aspects” of the Pfizer contract need to be looked into, including “the text messages between the Commission President and the fact that there is no paper trail of the preliminary negotiations in first instance.” Van Brempt is referring to text messages to the Pfizer CEO.

In April 2021, the New York Times first reported on these messages exchanged between von der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla in the run-up to the EU’s biggest vaccine procurement contract — for up to 1.8 billion doses of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, potentially being up to 35 billion euros when all was finalised.

In January this year, bizarrely, the EU’s Ombudsman charged the Commission with maladministration for failing to look for the text messages in response to a freedom of information request. The commission played cat and mouse and pretended that such messages no longer existed.

All the old guard of the EU is circling around von der Leyen, which would indicate she has broken the house rules on putting her hand in the till.

Last month, the European Court of Auditors published the aforementioned report in which it said the Commission refused transparency regarding details of von der Leyen’s personal role in the Pfizer contract.

In it, the budget watchdog found that the EU chief went rogue in order to personally hammer out a preliminary deal with Pfizer, instead of relying on joint negotiating teams.

All of this points to the establishment wanting to make sure that the image of the EU is preserved. It may well be that the hapless Commission boss will be made a scapegoat but allowed to remain in office until 2024.

Corruption, even high level, within the EU is of course nothing new. In 1999, an entire European Commission cabinet of 20 members were forced to resign under a cloud of corruption allegations, which featured one French commissioner giving her dentist huge EU contracts worth hundreds of millions of euros, other commissioners employing friends and family members and one commissioner presiding over out of control embezzlement from the EU’s humanitarian fund.

High-level corruption within the corridors of EU institutions is a tradition largely protected by EU institutions supposedly created to prevent such graft. In the case of Ursula, she seems to have gone rogue and not respected house rules so will have to be made an example of. The EU can’t have its own puppets swashbuckling the high life and doing their own thing, can they?