Censorship: A Threat to Public Health and Safety?

Across Australia, healthcare professionals are subject to government censorship regarding the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, under the very real threat of losing their employment if they dare to speak out.

Practitioners are the bulwark between people, weak or corrupt leaders, captured authorities, and powerful vested interests. This bulwark is being slowly dismantled through severe censure, and punishment, posing a serious threat to public health and safety. Practitioners who dutifully use their intellectual freedom and right to political communication to speak what they believe in defence of patients and the public find it costs them their entire career.

Censoring the medical frontline during this pandemic as a means to create confidence in government public health messaging and combat vaccine hesitancy is proving to be a very grave error indeed. In the name of ‘keeping us safe’, authorities silenced doctors and partnered with Big Tech to withhold and control information. As they say, a terrified and deceived public is a compliant public.

In contradiction to our pandemic preparedness plans, the frontline was censored: denying every Australian fully informed valid consent. This apparent unconstitutional threat to medicos made by AHPRA and national boards on 9 March 2021 poses, in my opinion, a continuing risk to public health and safety. Unelected medical bureaucrats refuse to discuss the secret health advice, and also refuse to allow open scientific discourse. This is extremely odd behaviour.

Sacred Duty

If evidence shows government Covid public health policy is causing an iatrogenic catastrophe rather than a measurable benefit, doctors and nurses have a moral, legal, and scientific duty to warn people. National and international laws, agreements, and regulations from Nuremberg to the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law reinforce the duty of physicians to serve humanity and to first do no harm.

If policy created at the ‘speed of science’ appears to be neither safe nor effective, the community expects protective action. Doctors must be permitted to use their constitutional right of intellectual freedom and political communication to save lives even from state-sanctioned policies. This is clearly outlined in the recent Ridd vs James Cook University High Court case;

‘Intellectual freedom plays “an important ethical role not just in the lives of the few people it protects, but in the life of the community more generally” to ensure the primacy of individual conviction: “not to profess what one believes to be false” and “a duty to speak out for what one believes to be true”.’

And the Nuremberg code deals with,

‘… The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.

‘This code also recognises that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.

‘This code recognises that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.’

Eroding Trust, Exacerbating Suffering

High court precedence and international bioethical declarations have been trashed by national boards and AHPRA, who have made unquestioning compliance to government public health messaging the new accepted standard of good medical practice. Evidence-based medicine, informed consent and bodily autonomy have been undermined to the point where practitioners are now seen by many as a mere enforcement arm of government propaganda. It is no coincidence that trust in our institutions and the medical professions appear to have died suddenly.

What has unfolded over the last few years is what Professor Jay Bhattacharya called ‘the greatest public health mistake in human history’. The medical misinformation that has characterised the Covid pandemic is unparalleled. For a disease with a highly stratified median infection fatality rate of 0.05 per cent in 2020, similar to the seasonal flu, with healthy children having a statistically 0 per cent risk, we locked down the country and much of the world, casting about 150 million people into extreme poverty.

On flawed modelling governments forced quarantine, separated families, let people die alone, impaired child development, closed businesses, shot their own people with rubber bullets, amassed generational debt, and made livelihood conditional on submitting to participation in what former Health Minister Greg Hunt called the world’s largest clinical trial.

Governments in cahoots with medical authorities supported the mandating of potentially dangerous experimental novel gene-based countermeasures, that were never tested for transmission, with a less than 1 per cent absolute risk reduction that were not tested for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, or reproductive toxicity, with literally zero long-term safety data. All while indemnifying manufacturers in secret contracts, reducing legislative safety and efficacy requirements, silencing doctors, and banning early treatments that showed great promise. All of this was supported by AHPRA and the national boards’ silencing of health professionals for our ‘safety’.

We have witnessed a never-ending stream of manipulated data, politically based medicine, behavioural nudge units, and secret health advice maintained by intense censorship, suppression, and reprisal. The ultimate goal, it seems, was to terrify the populace so they would submit to a coercive global vaccination campaign. We continue to witness what Dr Aseem Malhotra describes as ‘the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime’. Medical ethics, the precautionary principle, due diligence, and transparency are now concepts relegated to historical fiction rather than time-honoured codes.

Upholding the Official Narrative At All Costs

Today, according to medical regulators, raising safety concerns through data and evidence is not considered a moral professional obligation, but unprofessional bullying and harassment that requires either re-education or immediate suspension of one’s registration to practise.

When data does not support the government narrative, the apparent correct response regulators expect from practitioners is to stay silent while authorities simply stop reporting it, as demonstrated recently by NSW Health. Can’t have the truth getting in the way of a good public health crisis… It seems stating facts is now considered professional misconduct because it might demonstrate a failure of government policy and undermine confidence in the ‘message’.

During the time of Covid, we have witnessed the destruction of bioethics and human rights by the very authorities and institutions entrusted to uphold them. This system abuse has resulted in policies that have caused harm. Exactly how much harm is yet to be revealed. Increasing all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions, and declining birth rates commensurate with the vaccine rollout are not painting a pretty picture. A recent Rasmussen report showed ‘more than 1-in-4 think someone they know died from Covid Vaccines’. How much longer before the number of coincidences makes the ‘safe and effective’ mantra impossible to believe?

There are doctors and scientists across the country trying to raise safety signals, seeking answers to questions, writing letters, applying for FOIs, and sending reports as they fight to fulfil their codes and oaths. They are heroes, great lights in this nightmare, sacrificing careers and livelihoods to adhere to time-honoured codes and ethics.

We need real debate, open scientific discourse, acknowledgement of injuries, and access to unredacted data. For our medical authorities and political leaders to continue to enforce censorship in the face of possibly the greatest public health mistake in human history, an iatrogenic miscarriage of medical science causing untold harm, shows a reckless indifference to the sufferings of Australians.

The curtailment of practitioners’ intellectual freedom and political communication, by AHPRA and National Boards, appears to be in breach of the constitution, professional codes, and international ethical declarations. The current enforced censorship has undermined confidence in public health and continues to pose a serious threat to public health and safety. Censorship kills confidence, destroys trust, costs lives, and it must stop.


Originally published at The Spectator Australia.
Photo by Polina Tankilevitch.

Thank the Source

Australia’s Drug Regulator Hid Vaccine Deaths from the Public

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) was concerned that ‘disclosure could undermine public confidence’. The hidden deaths include two children, 7 and 9 years old, who both suffered fatal cardiac arrests which the TGA assessed as causally linked to Covid vaccination.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) request by Dr Melissa McCann reveal that the TGA appears to have hidden numerous vaccine-induced deaths from the public view, including those of two children.

Dr McCann shared the shocking revelation in her address at the Covid Vaccine Conference, hosted by Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party over the weekend in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. The event featured leading ICU physician Dr Pierre Kory, cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr Peter McCullough, and McCullough’s collaborator, author John Leake.

Addressing sold-out crowds, Dr McCann shared the extraordinary lengths she had to go to extract causality assessment documents relating to the TGA’s investigation of reported deaths after Covid vaccination, which were obtained under FOI request in a process that took six months. Dr McCann lodged the request after seeing an unexpectedly high number of patients coming through her clinic experiencing adverse events after immunisation (AEFIs). She also noticed a high number of serious AEFI reports in the DAEN database, including the reported death of a 14-year-old in October 2021.

In her original FOI request, Dr McCann requested causality assessments for all of the reported deaths in the DAEN database. This request was denied due to the large scope, and in negotiation with the TGA, Dr McCann agreed to revise down the request to the 11 documents that were eventually handed over, of which 10 related to DAEN death reports.

When the documents were finally provided to Dr McCann in July 2022, she was dismayed to find that there were multiple reports that the TGA had assessed as causally linked to Covid vaccination, but, with the exception of one death, had not been reported in the TGA’s regular Safety Reports.

Following is a list of deaths that the TGA’s own reports assessed as causally linked to Covid vaccination:

21-year-old female
Case 729139, Document 1
Moderna booster. Fatal AEFIs, including myocarditis, cardiac arrest, renal impairment, femoral artery embolism, spinal cord infarction.
Assessment outcome: ‘Causal’
* Initially determined as ‘unclassifiable’. VSIG (FOI 4049 Doc 5) updated the assessment outcome to ‘causal’.

9 year old
Case 724023, Document 2
Pfizer vaccination. Fatal AEFI, cardiac arrest.
Assessment outcome: ‘Causality assessment outcome’

24-year-old female
Case 718277, Document 3
Pfizer vaccination. Fatal AEFI, cardiac arrest.
Assessment outcome: ‘Causality’

7-year-old male
Case 719838, Document 5
Pfizer vaccination. Fatal AEFI, cardiac arrest.
Assessment outcome: ‘Causality’

21-year-old male
Case 644148, Document 6
Pfizer vaccination. Fatal AEFI.
Assessment outcome: ‘? causality’

Of the above five listed deaths, only the first (21-year-old female, case 729139) has been published in the TGA Safety Reports.1

The reported deaths are listed in DAEN, but the causality assessment is not visible to the public.

Australians have been falsely and misleadingly advised by the TGA and official health representatives, that out of 973 reported deaths, only 14 have been assessed as being causally linked to the Covid vaccines (13 following Astra Zeneca, 1 following Moderna).

The causality assessment reports released under FOI 3272 prove this statement to be a lie.

TGA Covid Vaccine Safety Report 15 December 2022

TGA Covid Vaccine Safety Report 15 December 2022

The November 2022 TGA Safety Report states, “There have been no deaths in children or adolescents determined to be linked to COVID-19 vaccination.” But the assessment reports indicating the causal role of the Pfizer vaccine in the cases of the 7 and 9-year-old children were released to Dr McCann in July 2022.

The causality assessment reports released under FOI 3272 prove this statement to also be a lie.

TGA Covid Vaccine Safety Report 3 November 2022

TGA Covid Vaccine Safety Report 3 November 2022

On reading the causality assessments provided to her under FOI 3727, Dr McCann felt both shocked and confused. “Why has this information not been provided to health professionals and the public who are making consent decisions? Children are continuing to be vaccinated and this is something that parents deserve to be able to weigh up,” Dr McCann told Dystopian Down Under.

It gets worse. Dr McCann was surprised to find that documents 1-10 out of a total 11 documents from FOI 3727 had not been uploaded to the TGA’s public disclosure log, per regular protocol. She emailed the TGA to query why documents 1-10 had been withheld from the disclosure log and was advised in a communication on 24 August 2022,

“The decision maker for this request decided not to publish documents 1-10 pursuant to section 11c(1)(a) of the FOI Act as they contain sensitive personal information about deceased persons. As you would appreciate, consultation with the families of the deceased was not considered appropriate, and, as such, consultation was not undertaken with those families. Further, the decision maker determined that disclosure of the documents could undermine public confidence and reduce the willingness of the public to report adverse events to the TGA.”

Natalie, DAEN case number 729139

Natalie, DAEN case number 729139

The TGA seems to have assumed that families of the deceased will not want to hear from them. On the contrary, Deb, mother of 21-year-old Natalie (case 729139), told Jab Injuries Australia that the lack of contact from the TGA was “disgraceful treatment of a grieving mother who could have made a meaningful contribution to their investigations.” Deb says that she has never been contacted by the TGA, and only discovered the causality assessment outcome of her daughter’s death via the TGA’s Safety Report (23 September 2022), which she accessed online.

As for the TGA’s assertion that disclosure of the documents could undermine public confidence — one could very well argue the opposite case. Perceived lack of transparency drives public distrust. The last thing the TGA needs is public suspicion that they are burying vaccine deaths. Full transparency is the only way to create and maintain trust in public health. Dr McCann made this argument in a further communication, but the TGA’s decision against uploading documents 1-10 to the public disclosure log was final.

During this time, Dr McCann, in partnership with other concerned doctors, repeatedly wrote to the Health Ministers and Adjunct Professor John Skerritt of the TGA to advise them of concerns about vaccine safety, and to call for immediate suspension of the vaccine rollout until an urgent review of adverse event reports could be undertaken.2

Letter from Dr Melissa McCann to Health Minister Greg Hunt, 20 March 2022

Letter from Dr Melissa McCann to Health Minister Greg Hunt, 20 March 2022

These correspondences were met alternately with silence, obfuscation, or blanket assurances that the TGA was closely monitoring safety, and that the vaccines were safe and effective.

Letter from Adj. Professor John Skerritt to Dr Melissa McCann, 22 November 2021

Letter from Adj. Professor John Skerritt to Dr Melissa McCann, 22 November 2021

Is this the tip of the iceberg?

The TGA consistently reports that only 14 of the 973 reported deaths have been causally linked to vaccination. But the contents of FOI 3727 raise questions:

  • How can the TGA’s statement be true? The TGA’s own causality assessments provided in FOI 3727 indicate that there are at least four more deaths that TGA has causally linked to vaccination (two adults, two children) which remain unaccounted for in the official count of 14.
  • How many of the 959 (973-14) deaths that the TGA implies are not causally linked to vaccination have even been investigated? Are 900 reports ‘in progress’? How many have been determined as ‘not causally linked’? Dr McCann asked the TGA to state the number of causality assessment reports that had been completed, but her request was denied.

Dr McCann is concerned about the implications for public health and safety:

“If everyone is working on the basis that all of these deaths have been investigated and have been determined as not causally linked, well we can’t be sure that that’s the case.”Dr Melissa McCann

For now, Dr McCann is turning her efforts to a Covid Vaccine Class Action, which is expected to file within the month. The Class Action has received over 350 expressions of interest, and the number is still growing.

“Hopefully this class action will force some transparency so that there will be more clarity around how adverse events are reviewed, and how many are likely to be linked to the vaccines,” says Dr McCann.

This is not the first time Dr McCann has stepped up as a national hero.

The Courier Mail reported Dr McCann’s efforts at turning her Whitsunday Family Practice into a makeshift hospital in the immediate aftermath of Tropical Cyclone Debbie, in 2017.

Dr Melissa McCann Cyclone Debbie

Dr McCann has uncovered much more than this through the FOI process, but further revelations will be saved for another day. This is enough apparent malfeasance to swallow in one sitting.

Credit to Jikky (Twitter) and Senator Gerard Rennick for their roles in partnering with Dr McCann to bring light to the TGA’s behaviour in relation to Covid safety surveillance and regulation.

Yesterday, Federal MP Russell Broadbent (Liberal Party) added further pressure to the TGA, referring to Dr McCann’s FOI 3727 in parliament, “Why has the TGA not responded to doctors who raised these issues with you six months ago, including drawing your attention to those case reports? This information is extremely alarming and demands an immediate response from the TGA.” (Statement at question time, 14 February 2023). An answer is yet to be supplied.

Sydney lawyer Tony Nikolic, of AFL Solicitors, has represented parents of children who are disputing the necessity of having their child vaccinated against Covid, and is now seeing cases related to Covid vaccine injury in children as well. Mr Nikolic told Dystopian Down Under,

”In circumstances where child deaths and serious long-term injuries are listed on the TGA DAEN database relating to new and unsatisfactorily tested vaccine technologies, there should be no other response than a complete suspension of injections until independent lawyers and medical professionals conduct a thorough investigation, which should consider any civil wrongs, crimes or other wrongdoing associated to the roll out of injections across Australia.“

Australian parents who have concerns that their child has been vaccine injured or is subject to coercion to take a Covid vaccine are invited to contact Mr Nikolic at admin@aflsolicitors.com.au

The TGA has been contacted for comment, and this post will be updated accordingly as correspondence is received.

FOI 3727 Documents:

Document 1 Ar

358KB ∙ PDF File


Document 2 Ar

242KB ∙ PDF File


Document 3 Ar

153KB ∙ PDF File


Document 4 Ar

172KB ∙ PDF File


Document 5 Ar

155KB ∙ PDF File


Document 6 Ar

157KB ∙ PDF File


Document 7 Ar

300KB ∙ PDF File


Document 8 Ar

159KB ∙ PDF File


Document 9 Ar

164KB ∙ PDF File


Document 10 Ar

154KB ∙ PDF File


FOI 4026 Document 5 (VSIG report, Case 729139):



Rebekah Barnett reports from Western Australia. She holds a BA (Hons First Class) in Communications. Find her work at Dystopian Down Under.
Photo: CDC

Thank the Source

Breaking the Silence: Do Vested Interests Stifle Medical Discussions?

Big Pharma controls the mainstream medical narrative, corrupting research and the integrity of scientific journals.

Previously, we examined the story behind UK Cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra’s call to ‘stop the shots’.

In this follow-up piece, we explore potential factors stifling open discussion by medical professionals around this important issue. There are two broad categories: blind spots and roadblocks.

Blind Spots

All vaccines are safe, therefore these vaccines are safe. This is something we have all heard before.

One of the biggest blind spots is the foundation of apparent ‘universal vaccine safety’ upon which this new technology rests. Dr Aseem Malhotra admits that even he ‘could not have expected or conceived of the possibility that these vaccines, these new vaccines, could cause harm’.

Assumptions were made. Malhotra explains:

‘Vaccines… have got this special place in medicine, they’re untouchable. (They’re) “only good”, so don’t even go there. Combine that with the fact the regulator approved it, and the fact (these vaccines were) originally invented… by smaller groups of scientists. (Pfizer and Moderna) just scaled it up. So, there was the benefit of the doubt here.’

However, no drug, medication or intervention is completely safe. Not even vaccines — why else would vaccine injury compensation schemes exist around the world?

In addition, these mRNA products are not like every other vaccine that we’ve seen. Just ask world-renowned virologist, immunologist, and mRNA technology developer, Robert Malone.

With any new technology, caution is paramount and the focus should be on demonstrating that benefits outweigh harms. For this to happen, the ingredients are time (usually around decade for new drug development), and an attitude of ‘prove to me it’s safe’ rather than ‘prove to me it’s unsafe’ — the inverted reality we currently seem to have.

Corruption and Cover-Ups

There is also a widely held assumption that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart. They don’t.

A medical colleague recently stated, ‘Oh, I don’t think (insert drug company name here) would do anything like that!’ I was gobsmacked. My colleague was talking about a member of the industry well known for corruption and lawsuits resulting in convictions that run to the billions.

In the case of the Covid mRNA injectables, reports of compromised data integrity, attempts to withhold raw data (for 55 years!), and data reanalyses raising serious safety concerns, have done nothing to convince us otherwise.

Malhotra agrees:

‘I find it difficult to believe that scientists at these companies didn’t know what that data showed… and the harm it would do. But (the companies) are not interested in that because they are legally protected from liability of injury. The legal obligation … of pharma companies is to profit their shareholders. Ethics don’t mean anything to them.

‘Big Pharma and Big Corporations often behave, in the way they conduct their business, like psychopaths: deliberately deceiving others for profit with callous unconcern for the safety of others. This is essentially what we are seeing.‘

Another misunderstanding is the idea that the government provides a current, individualised, and unbiased source of medical information.

Government information is generally slow to appear, impersonal (for the patient in front of you), and driven by fiscal and political motives. Every year doctors are issued with pages of ‘guidelines’ aimed at populations, not individuals, presenting a minefield for the discerning doctor and the patient in front of them.

Some doctors have come to rely heavily on guidelines. In this over-litigious and over-regulated space, guidelines present a safe, and easy, way to practice for time-poor professionals. The by-product of this is there is a less perceived necessity for doctors to seek the evidence for themselves, combined with a mindset that ‘if I stick to the guidelines all will be well’.


‘In answering why aren’t more doctors speaking out, (partly it) is that most doctors are not aware that the vaccines are causing all these harms,’ says Malhotra.

‘If you are not aware of a possibility of something causing harm or a side effect, then you never diagnose it. You will miss it.

‘The WHO endorsed an official list of potential serious adverse effects when the vaccine was rolled out and the list is huge.

‘Doctors have not been aware of these (potential) side effects and so they are not diagnosing. They are looking around for other causes when people are having heart attacks and (they are) not even thinking of the vaccine.’

The co-director of Coverse, an Australian organisation run by, and for, those who have suffered a significant adverse reaction following their Covid jab, says this is a vicious cycle:

‘If the doctor doesn’t think (something) is caused by the vaccine, they may not report it… By not reporting it, the government doesn’t have the full picture, so they don’t put out safety notices and then doctors don’t know that they should be looking out for it, so they don’t report it.’

Information Overload

There is also an ongoing information war.

When the pandemic started, so did the daily government-endorsed updates in my email and in-tray. Added to this, as the vaccines rolled out, was an information stream from professional, regulatory, and ‘pharma-funded’ doctors’ media. It was relentless.

It is hard not to drown in all that info and instead choose to do individual research rather than be spoon-fed. Many doctors are working so hard, they simply don’t have the time. Malhotra agrees:

‘The chair of the BMA, when I spent two hours on the phone with him last December said, “Aseem, nobody seems to have critically appraised the evidence … most of my colleagues are getting their information on the vaccines from the BBC.”’

Understanding ‘the science’ is not straightforward. If a doctor does undertake individual research, it’s important they understand the current landscape of the literature. It’s a long story, probably best summed up by Lancet editor Richard Horton:

‘The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue… science has taken a turn towards darkness.’

There are many drivers of this problem, but front and centre is (you guessed it), the ‘pharma elephant’ in the room. Pharmaceutical interests are responsible for much of the funding for research grants and academic institutions, and also influence the journals in which such research is published.

A doctor also needs to have the ability to critically appraise the evidence in a way that they can then communicate it to patients. This takes time and expertise. Many end up relying on the regulator (for example the TGA) to give them the information (read: guidelines, see above) in the way that they
should communicate it.

But even this path is subject to potential pharmaceutical influence, as highlighted recently in the British Medical Journal: ‘Of the six regulators, Australia had the highest proportion of budget from industry fees (96 per cent).’

Finally, if a doctor can critically appraise the data, they may become afraid to go against the establishment or to speak out, due to likely censorship and pushback.

Malhotra surmises,

‘As you narrow it down, you end up with only a handful of people that 1) can critically appraise the evidence; 2) can articulate it, and; 3) have the platform to do it. That then becomes a very small number of people.’

So how do we move from here?

Stay tuned for the next instalment addressing this very question.

‘We are up against a juggernaut in terms of the capture of the medical establishment and media, repetition of “safe and effective”, and the gaslighting that’s gone on,’ summarises Malhotra.

To break free will not be easy.


Originally published at The Spectator Australia. Photo by Maksim Goncharenok.

Thank the Source

Breaking the Silence: Do mRNA Vaccine Harms Outweigh Benefits?

As someone who has always questioned the safety and efficacy of the Covid ‘injectables’, I’ve thought long and hard about why more doctors haven’t voiced concerns, why so many seem unaware of the documented side effects, and why so few are sounding the alarm.

To help me answer this question, I spoke with renowned UK cardiologist and heart-health campaigner Dr Aseem Malhotra, who has been breaking the silence.

‘Double-jabbed’ Malhotra originally supported the program, until a series of events sent him digging into the evidence. What he discovered alarmed him and resulted in the publication of two evidence-based, peer-reviewed papers along with a call for the immediate suspension of the Covid mRNA roll-out. He tells his story:

‘Despite being one of pharma’s biggest critics, I could not have expected or conceived of the possibility that these vaccines, these new vaccines, could cause harm. So very early on I was one of the first to have two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and I helped out at a vaccine centre in January 2021.

About a month later I had a conversation with a friend of mine, film director Gurinder Chadha (who was) vaccine hesitant. I said to her, “Listen, traditional vaccines are still one of the safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine. That doesn’t mean that all vaccines are completely safe. No drug is completely safe. But when you compare them to other pharmacological interventions I’ve talked about and campaigned on, for example diabetes drugs, blood pressure pills or statins, they are far, far safer.”’

Personal Loss

Malhotra further explains his view during a Good Morning Britain interview.

‘I said, “There are rational concerns for vaccine hesitancy and irrational concerns. The rational concerns are when looking at what the pharmaceutical industry has done for years — they’ve been found guilty of fraud on many occasions — and prescribed medications are the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer.” So, I was being open, and I felt compassion for people who were vaccine-hesitant. And I said, “In my opinion, as it stands at the moment, traditional vaccines are the safest.”

‘Six months later my father suffered an unexplained… cardiac arrest. The post-mortem didn’t make sense, he was a very fit guy, yet he had very severe narrowings of two of his coronary arteries. I had known his cardiac history inside out, we had done imaging on him a few years earlier. I found myself thinking “hold on a minute, he’s got a rapid progression of coronary artery disease when he’s doing really well during lockdown, walking 10,000 steps a day and eating well. This doesn’t make sense.“ And I could only attribute it at the time to stress, I couldn’t think of any other reason.’

Over the following months, emerging data led Malhotra to question whether the vaccine was linked to his father’s death. The first was an abstract published in Circulation (November 8, 2021) by US cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr Steven Gundry, who followed several hundred of his patients after the mRNA (Moderna/Pfizer) jabs. Gundry found that inflammatory markers correlated with heart disease risk went through the roof. On average, that change increased the risk of those people having a heart attack or stroke within the next five years, from 11 per cent up to 25 per cent. This increase in risk is massive.


The next event raised more alarm bells for Malhotra.

‘Within two weeks of that abstract, a whistle-blower contacted me from a prestigious institution in the country, and said that a group of researchers had accidentally found through imaging studies that mRNA vaccines were increasing heart attack risk through inflammation, but the lead researcher said they were not going to publish these findings because it may affect funding from pharma.

‘I then felt a duty and contacted GB News saying, “There is a Circulation abstract but also something else I’ve heard,” and I spoke about it on GB News. That interview went viral … with me raising questions and saying, “We need to investigate this.”’

The pushback was strong.

‘One very prestigious medical body that I am affiliated with received a number of anonymous complaints from doctors that I was bringing the medical profession into disrepute, and that as I was in an association with them, I was bringing them into disrepute. I was then asked to formally respond,’ he relates. Malhotra responded and let off with a warning.


This experience made him realise how difficult it would be to publicly expose things, so he decided to critically appraise the evidence himself.

‘When I broke the data down, it became very clear, the harms of the mRNA vaccine massively outweigh the benefits. It was not even close! And that’s based on the highest level of quality of data we will ever have.’

The evidence comes from the original double-blind, randomised control trials, that led to the approval of both Pfizer and Moderna by regulators worldwide. Malhotra explains,

‘In a reanalysis of the original trials with the Wuhan strain, eminent scientists essentially found you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event — for example hospitalisation, disability, or a life-changing event – than you were to be hospitalised with Covid. That means, in essence, the mRNA vaccine should likely never, ever have been approved for anybody in the first place.’

He continues:

‘The randomised control trial data showed a risk of serious adverse events of at least 1 in 800 within two months. It’s probably much higher than that as you go forward because one of the mechanisms is accelerated heart disease. My dad died six months after the second dose of the vaccine; many people are going to be dropping dead and having heart attacks months after having the vaccine because it accelerates coronary artery disease.

But other vaccines have been pulled for far less: the swine flu vaccine was withdrawn in 1976 following episodes of Guillain Barre syndrome at a rate of 1/100,000; rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn in 1999 for causing a form of bowel obstruction (intussusception) in 1/10,000; this is 1/800 at least. So, it’s a no-brainer. The question is: why have they not pulled it? Some say, “It was an emergency use authorisation.” Well, it’s no longer an emergency.’

This begs the question: if the evidence is now so clear, why does the silence continue? Well, I’m glad you asked. In a follow-up article, I will explore the factors contributing to the great silence — hint, it’s not just AHPRA — and how we can move from here.

Encouragingly, if recent events are anything to go by, the silence is (slowly) breaking. The past few weeks have seen appearances by doctors on mainstream media voicing jab safety concerns, including Australia’s Dr Kerryn Phelps, and Malhotra’s recent truth bomb drop on a live BBC broadcast receiving millions of views on Twitter. Thanks Elon.

They are joined by other eminent professors and clinicians sounding the alarm and calling for governments to ‘Stop the Shots’.


Originally published in Spectator Australia. Photo by Maksim Goncharenok.

Thank the Source

Indiana Gov. Wants 29 Times More Funding For Bureaucracy That Brutalized Public Health

Indiana Gov. Wants 29 Times More Funding For Bureaucracy That Brutalized Public Health

Indiana’s term-limited governor, highly unpopular with his GOP base, is pushing an overfunded public health plan that could steal local control from county officials. It’s yet another state-level example of Republican politicians selling out their own voters to bloated and harmful special interests.

The lame-duck governor and several top Republicans in the Republican-controlled legislature are clearly angling to get hired by Big Pharma after leaving public office, thereby using this sweetheart deal to eventually line their own pockets from one of the state’s largest lobbying interests.

Authoritarian orders delivered by Gov. Eric Holcomb and his health commissioner, Kris Box, are one of the reasons Holcomb was booed at his own party convention last June. Those destructive mandates masked kids, hobbled the economy, stunted education, and crushed mental health. Yet Holcomb now wants to increase the influence of this inept state health bureaucracy with an expensive plan designed to centralize more power at the state level. The package will incentivize county health departments to give up local control in return for huge wads of cash.

The governor wants the state legislature to give him 29 times the amount they currently provide for the state’s 95 health departments, from $6.9 million per year to $200 million per year. That financial ask alone tells you why Holcomb is not popular with base voters and won re-election with hundreds of thousands of Democrat votes. It is part of a whopping spending plan that even state Democrats can champion. 

The governor used a crude formula to come up with his budget: figure out how much less Indiana spends on public health than other states and bring it up to the national average. Holcomb claims, without evidence and in the face of long experience showing government intervention makes things worse, that more government spending will reduce obesity, lower smoking rates, and improve mental health — all areas where his state ranks poorly.

Yet it is unlikely that a giant government model will alleviate complex health problems that doctors already aren’t solving with one-on-one care. Furthermore, the fact that public health did so much damage to mental health with its isolating Covid policies gives the field little credibility.

Holcomb has no intention of just handing over this extra money to the counties in some kind of flexible format. The Governor’s Public Health Commission touts a comprehensive plan that must be signed onto in its entirety. It includes 80-20 fund matching rules (where the state pays the bulk); 10 additional statutory duties; new data requirements; and apparently, obedience to state guidance on controversial issues. 

Luke Kenley, one of the commission’s co-chairs, said county commissioners who vote to join the program will be turning over their elected responsibilities to state officials.

“We’ve had these debates, discussions, arguments and fights back and forth about, ‘Well the governor shouldn’t do a mask mandate,’ or ‘The governor is telling us to do this or to do that or something else,’ or ‘What about vaccinations?’ or ‘What about decisions by local officials?’ We’re trying to avoid that kind of a situation by making sure that everybody who’s in the program wants to be in the program,” said Kenley at a committee meeting last summer.

Such remarks make those of us who saw children forcibly masked and quarantined at the direction of the state health department leery of an agreement that could make localities even more answerable to the state on individual health choices. 

All county commissioners will be able to vote on whether they want to tie themselves to the state as part of a five-year plan. While Kenley argues the opt-in plan is voluntary, the sheer financial size of the promised funding comes off as more of a bribe, especially for smaller counties with limited tax bases that already have a hard time meeting state requirements. Even independently-minded commissioners, who might balk at the size and scope of the plan, will be hesitant to turn down the money if it makes it look like they don’t care about constituents’ health. 

Kenley said about 70 percent of health department funding comes from the local tax base, whereas only 30 percent comes from the state. Kenley’s plan aims to make the state the primary funder.

The governor couldn’t have picked a better salesman for the pricey program, as Kenley is Indiana’s former Senate appropriations chair. He mentored Sen. Ryan Mishler, who currently holds the chairman spot and will be a deciding factor in whether Holcomb’s plan gets funding.

The commission itself seems to know that any county proud enough to say no to the state’s program will crawl back eventually because of the amount of money dangled before local governments. That’s also how the federal government now controls states: bribing them to obey ridiculous, harmful, and bankrupting mandates. It’s a bad model that reduces American self-government.

“There will be some who say that, ‘Autonomously we want to be in control, and we will opt out of this.’ What they’re saying is, we will, over the next four years, fund our health according to state law without your help,” said a commission member at one of the group’s final meetings. “In about two years, they’re going to find out: we can’t do that.”

That comment sparked laughter around the tables. He added the state would have to “lovingly support” counties “through their misdirection.” Kenley offered it might be helpful to educate misguided counties so they realize the brutal situation they may face if they decide to opt out.

That tone of condescension, in combination with the fact that the state still does not acknowledge the damage it did with its Covid orders, should give Indiana legislators pause when determining whether to fund Holcomb’s outlandish request. Without the General Assembly backing them up, county commissioners may get stuck saying yes to even more state control.

Amy Drake is a stay-at-home mom, writer, and St. Joseph County councilwoman in South Bend, Ind.


Covid-19: What Explains the Sudden Deaths?

While there is no cause for panic, reports of otherwise healthy people suddenly collapsing and dying do need to be investigated to determine if there is any correlation with vaccines or something else.

Editor’s Note: Steve Blizzard, political analyst and financial planner, is a long-time friend of the Canberra Declaration. He collects groundbreaking articles from Australia and all over the globe. Please find the latest article republished by him from the National Herald, India on his own Substack.


Dr Amitav Banerjee
Professor & Head Community Medicine at Dr D Y Patil Medical College, Pune, India

Published: 23 Dec 2022, 5:15 PM National Herald, India

A spike in cases of sudden heart attacks, cardiac arrests and other cardiological complications among all age groups is being reported from across the country; even seemingly fit people are dying of cardiological health issues while walking on the street, on the dance floor and even while just sitting at a desk. Not surprisingly, the hashtag #heartattack trended on Twitter earlier this month.

Some of the sudden and unfortunate deaths in previously healthy people, including teenagers, may be purely coincidental. But such incidents demand attention and a precautionary reflex, they demand that we err on the side of caution.

Recent estimates of the lethality of the Covid-19 virus, however, should be reassuring. A meta-analysis by investigators from Stanford University found that the lethality of Covid is 0.0003 per cent till the age of 19 years and around 0.03 per cent to 0.07 per cent up to the age of 69 years.

Given such low fatalities from the infection, we can afford to pause vaccination and instead devote time and resources to conduct a thorough investigation.

According to a survey by LocalCircles, a social community platform, 51 per cent of the respondents said they knew one or more persons who have had heart attacks, strokes, sudden cancers, neurological disorders etc. in the recent past.

Out of those who experienced such events, 62 per cent of the cases were found to have been double vaccinated, 11 per cent had received a single dose and 8 per cent were unvaccinated.

Science demands a detached view and scientists should not jump to conclusions. One of the requirements for this is discerning any unusual patterns at the population level.

This does indicate some cause for concern. The increase in sudden deaths has been reported since early 2021; there was a six-fold increase in heart attacks reported from Mumbai.

The pattern of excess deaths is not however restricted to India, but is global. Here we take a close look at two countries from where open data is available: England–Wales and Australia.

Covid sudden deaths graph England-Wales

The figure (see graph) shows the total number of deaths in England and Wales from all causes in the first 47 weeks (until the end of November) of each of the years since 2015. We can see that the year 2020 saw an increase of about 13 per cent in overall mortality over the average of the previous five years. What is striking also is that even in 2022, there is significant excess mortality of about 8 per cent over the 2015-2019 average.

Since there has been concern about increased deaths among young people, let us next look at the same data in the 15–44 age group from England & Wales.

The figure shows the total deaths in this age group in weeks 1-47 of each year since 2015. We see that in this age group, even the year 2020 which had peak Covid-19 deaths, does not have significant excess deaths. However, there has been a sharp increase in excess deaths in this age-group in 2021 as well as 2022.

The case of Australia is even more stark, as the country followed a zero-Covid policy for a long time, with strict lockdowns as well as coercion and mandates for Covid-19 vaccines. By the start of 2022, it had vaccinated the majority of its population and even booster doses were made available.

The baseline average deaths in the first eight months of the year is just 110,483 while the total deaths in the first eight months of 2022 has been 129,513. This represents a 17.2 per cent increase above baseline: even higher than the excess deaths caused by Covid-19 in 2020 in England & Wales.

Edward Dowd in his book, Cause Unknown–The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022, reports 84 per cent rise in sudden deaths in the age group 25–44 years in USA coinciding with mass vaccine mandates which was corroborated by study of insurance claims.

There are two possible causes for the high excess mortality world-wide. First, these could be the prolonged effects of harsh lockdowns. After all, lockdowns have directly increased diabetes, obesity, starvation, poverty, joblessness, vitamin-D deficiency, propensity for cancer, etc. A second cause could be the excessive use of Covid-19 vaccines, even among the already Covid recovered, and even among the not-at-risk population, without adequate safety data.

By the time vaccines were developed, the virus had infected large numbers in densely populated countries of Asia and Africa. Being younger or leaner, many of them recovered and did not require vaccination because studies have shown that natural immunity acquired after exposure to the virus is 13 times more robust than immunity induced by vaccines.

We should grant policymakers the benefit of doubt—precautionary principle demands one should err on the side of safety. However, after more than a year into mass vaccination, we are still at a crossroads.

The way forward would be to halt mass vaccination in those who have recovered from natural infection and follow them forward to monitor any adverse events presently being attributed to long Covid.

The second group in this study can be those who never had encountered the virus but have taken the vaccine. Both these groups need to be followed up to ascertain short-term as well as long-term effects and provide hard evidence of cause-effect relationship of either the vaccine or the natural infection. Anything short of this will mask the truth forever.

The time correlation of heart illnesses with the Covid-19 jab rollout is unmistakable in the worldwide data. While correlation does not mean causation, it certainly is a red flag which must be probed objectively.

India-Covid-sudden deaths

Amitav Banerjee is an epidemiologist and Professor and Head of Community Medicine at DY Patil Medical College, Pune. He is author of the book, Covid-19 Pandemic–A Third Eye.

Bhaskaran Raman is a Professor at IIT Bombay, and has recently authored the book “Math Murder in Media Manufactured Madness” on different aspects of Covid.


More News

  • More Than 1-in-4 Think Someone They Know Died From COVID-19 Vaccines
    “Nearly half of Americans think COVID-19 vaccines may be to blame for many unexplained deaths, and more than a quarter say someone they know could be among the victims.”
  • Former UCF tight end Jake Hescock “dies suddenly” at 25.
  • Delayed Reactions: Excess Mortality Continues to Climb.
    Ed Dowd: “I know from an inside whistleblower that in the month of August, we saw 36% excess mortality in the millennial group life policyholders (ages 25-44)”. [Full Interview]
  • When 18-year-olds start to have heart attacks…
    Budding English cricketer Ben Aldred survives mystery heart attack at WA’s Mindarie beach | PerthNow


Photo by Maksim Goncharenok.

Thank the Source

How Twitter Banned the Truth About Covid

The Twitter Files continue to expose the platform’s egregious censorship of the truth — most recently about Covid.

Even through the Christmas break, the team wading through the Twitter Files has continued to expose Twitter’s scandalous censorship of inconvenient facts.

The latest drop has come from David Zweig, whose report appeared first on Twitter and is now available in long form on Bari Weiss’ new media website, The Free Press. The focus of Zweig’s report is how Twitter banned the truth about Covid.

Censored, But Right All Along

Those of us willing to listen to health experts outside of official state and media channels soon saw holes in the official Covid narrative. We suspected that the threat of the virus had been vastly overblown, that lockdowns were doing more harm than good, that those with prior natural immunity had little or no need for vaccination, and that the mRNA injectables were causing heart and other serious health problems.

For these dissident viewpoints, we were branded heretics and conspiracy theorists. Time has vindicated many of our worst suspicions.

Time has also condemned Twitter’s censor-happy staff.

“The platform suppressed true information from doctors and public-health experts that was at odds with U.S. government policy,” Zweig begins his report.

He laments that during the Covid years, “the legacy media had shown itself to largely operate as a messaging platform for our public health institutions”. Zweig scolds those institutions, noting they “operated in near total lockstep, in part by purging internal dissidents and discrediting outside experts”.

Indeed, a fake “consensus” on Covid could only be generated by excluding and censoring the many experts who disagreed.

As such, Twitter became an essential outlet where “those with public health expertise and perspectives at odds with official policy could air their views—and where curious citizens could find such information”. Among the most important information was simply the response of other nations to Covid that differed from the approach taken in the United States.

“It quickly became clear that Twitter also seemed to promote content that reinforced the establishment narrative, and to suppress views and even scientific evidence that ran to the contrary,” Zweig writes.

The U.S. Government Abridged the Freedom of Speech

Zweig’s most scandalous revelation was the role of the White House in urging Twitter to silence the speech of U.S. citizens. So much for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was drawn up to prevent the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”.

Even the Trump Administration was guilty of the same, pressing Twitter executives to throttle posts about panic buying to prevent a copycat effect — even though runs on grocery stores were a real phenomenon.

The Biden Administration was far worse. Zweig comments that “its agenda for the American people can be summed up as: Be very afraid of Covid and do exactly what we say to stay safe.”

Biden White House officials pressured Twitter to crack down on “anti-vaxxer accounts”. “They were especially concerned about Alex Berenson, a journalist skeptical of lockdowns and mRNA vaccines, who had hundreds of thousands of followers on the platform,” writes Zweig.

Just hours after President Joe Biden claimed that social media companies were “killing people” by allowing vaccine misinformation on their platform, Twitter locked Berenson out of his account. He was later permanently suspended.

More recently, Berenson sued Twitter and is now back on the platform after settling with the Big Tech giant. During that lawsuit, Twitter’s internal communications revealed that “the White House had directly met with Twitter employees and pressured them to take action on Berenson”.

A juicy plot twist in the Twitter files is that Twitter executives did not always give in to the wishes of the Biden Administration. “An extensive review of internal communications at the company revealed that employees often debated moderation cases in great detail,” Zweig reveals — “and with more care for free speech than was shown by the government”.

As many people have been asking on Twitter in recent days, what is the legal recourse when the White House is known to have violated the First Amendment?

The Truth about Covid that Twitter Censored

What information about Covid, now known to be true, did Twitter censor? Examples abound.

Martin Kulldorff is an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. For sharing his expert medical opinions — which were often at odds with U.S. public health officials and the American Left — Kulldorff was blacklisted by Twitter, was temporarily suspended, and had his tweets labelled “misleading”.

In March 2021, Kulldorff tweeted, “Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”

Twitter moderators flagged Kulldorff’s tweet as “false information” that violated the platform’s Covid-19 misinformation policy, even though his statement was an expert’s opinion — and one that was in line with the vaccine policies of multiple other nations. (Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, for instance, have variously restricted the use of the Moderna product for children due to risk of heart inflammation).

Nevertheless, his tweet was given a “misleading” label, all replies were shut off, and Kulldorff’s message was prevented from being seen and shared widely.

Another user, @KelleyKga, whose account fact-checks public health information and has over 18,000 followers, had a tweet flagged as “misleading”, even though it cited CDC data.

@KelleyKga disagreed with someone claiming that “Since December of 2021 COVID has been the leading cause of death from disease in children.” That claim was demonstrably false: Covid has never been the leading cause of death from disease in children. Yet it was @KelleyKga — and not the purveyor of the bogus claim — who was censored by Twitter.

In another case, a physician who runs a Twitter account called Infectious Disease Ethics had a tweet labelled as “misleading” even though it simply referred to the results of a peer-reviewed study that found a link between the mRNA injectables and cardiac arrests in Israeli youth.

Likewise, a Rhode Island physician by the name of Andrew Bostom was permanently suspended from Twitter after publishing results from a peer-reviewed study that uncovered a link between the mRNA drug and lower sperm count in sperm donors. 

Should We Censor the President?

One comical exchange that took place between Twitter staff centred on a tweet by then-President Donald Trump. “Don’t be afraid of Covid,” Trump wrote in the offending tweet. “Don’t let it dominate your life.”

In this case, Trump’s censor at Twitter was deputy general counsel Jim Baker, who had previously worked in a similar role at the FBI, and has since been fired by Elon Musk for colluding with the FBI to censor users on the platform.

Baker tried to convince Yoel Roth, then Twitter’s head of Trust and Safety, that Trump’s tweet was “a violation of our Covid-19 policy”. Roth had to spell it out to Baker that the President urging Americans not to be afraid is a “broad, optimistic statement” that “doesn’t incite people to do something harmful” and therefore did not fall within the scope of Twitter’s policies.

It will take many more months for Bari Weiss’ team to sift through the Twitter Files and complete the jigsaw of what went on behind the veil at the little blue bird. Even so, as David Zweig summarises, here is what we already know:

At Twitter, Covid-related bias bent heavily toward establishment dogmas. Inevitably, dissident yet legitimate content was labeled as misinformation, and the accounts of doctors and others were suspended both for tweeting opinions and demonstrably true information…

What might this pandemic and its aftermath have looked like if there had been a more open debate on Twitter and other social media platforms—not to mention the mainstream press—about the origins of Covid, about lockdowns, about the true risks of Covid in kids, and much more?

Keep your ear to the ground for more answers. In the meantime, be sure to fact check the fact-checkers and take every “misleading” tag on social media with a generous grain of salt.

Image by Jeremy Bezanger on Unsplash.

Thank the Source

Iran Moves to Freeze Bank Accounts of Hijab Mandate Protestors

Dissenters opposing Iran’s hardline hijab mandate face having their bank accounts frozen, prison, or worse, if they fail to comply with what is being framed as a public health order.

The 1979 Islamic dress code, which has been a catalyst for massive pro-civil liberty demonstrations in the country, was mandated in August as the country’s President Ebrahim Raisi clamped down on non-conformity.

Called the Hijab and Chastity Project, Raisi’s cultural health mandate was issued to “cleanse society of the pollution caused by nonconformance with Islamic dress codes.”

The mandate’s purpose, Iran Wire said, is to build a “model Islamic society”.

The cultural health mandate was delivered to most government departments, with the nod of approval from the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, setting Iran’s decades-old mandatory Islamic dress code in stone.


According to the August 2022 119-page hijab mandate sent to government agencies, departments were:

  1. To introduce surveillance cameras to monitor and fine unveiled women or refer them for “counselling.”
  2. To place student clerics in residential buildings to monitor compliance.
  3. Hospital staff are required to provide “appropriate garments” to female patients on their way to surgery.
  4. Fines for non-compliance.
  5. A mandatory prison sentence for any Iranian who questions or posts content against mandatory hijab online.

Freezing bank accounts, reported Iran International, is a new measure likely to be implemented as part of a “more modern framework, using the technologies that already exist.”

The proposals to expand government overreach are part of the Iranian government’s response to the gap left by the supposedly disbanded morality militia (the Gasht-e-Ershad).

Hossein Jalali, a legislator and cultural committee member, explained:

“It is possible that women who do not observe hijab would be informed via SMS, asking them to respect the law. After notifying them, we enter the warning stage… and in the third stage, the bank account of the person who unveiled may be blocked.”

The digital infrastructure exists, as does the legal precedent.

An official hijab SMS warning system was at least trialled by Iranian authorities in 2019.

Women who took off their hijab to drive a car, or women who generally violated the “public health” mandate, were summoned to ‘the morality police station.’

Offenders were then given an official warning and only released after they commit to complying with the hijab mandate in writing, added Radio Farda.

If the cultural health mandate was broken a second time, those “accused were charged, and referred to a court of law.”

This, Jalali said, would now include “the government moving to block the bank account of the offender as a way of punishing them.”

In the past, recalled Radio Farda, Iran has used up to 8,000 undercover men and women, mandate compliance agents, to “identify dress code offenders”.

Adding to reports from Iran International, Armenia-based news agency News.am tracked the source of the news back to the Iranian newspaper Donya-e-Eqtesad.

Quoting Jalali, News.am relayed his confidence that “such a measure would help stop protests in the country” and force cultural health mandate compliance.

He then suggested freezing a repeat offender’s bank accounts could be an alternative to incarceration.

Being locked out, instead of being locked up, is still a prison sentence. The former just means less pesky paperwork for tyrants. The state doesn’t have to house, clothe, and feed offenders.

Control Freaks

With the obvious connection between the hardline hijab mandate and COVID mad mask mandates, it’s no stretch to suggest the West’s new authoritarians are salivating with excitement to see how it all pans out.

Chief among those is likely to be the iron-fisted socialist, Christophobe, and COVIDian, Premier Daniel Andrews, who accommodated the message of Islam, in an all-out hypocritical embrace of Mohammad’s mix-and-match theology, earlier this week.

Likewise, ‘full-tilt tyrannical’ Canadian “progressives”, who took the lead on cancelling protesters by freezing the accounts of pro-informed-consent freedom protesters earlier this year.

Truckers protesting COVIDian WEF-tist Justin Trudeau’s “vax or the axe” mandates, raised $3.85 million in 11 days (ending near $10 million) as they took their concerns to Ottawa.

Reacting to the protesters, Tiananmen Trudeau hid behind a positive “COVID” test, contemplated sending in tanks, smeared protesters as “Nazis”, confiscated their funding, then had organiser Tamara Lich arrested and held without bail.

Whether it’s hardline mask mandates or hardline hijab policies, there is the same “public health order” devil, singing the same “public health crisis” tune.

The dangers of a cashless society aside, for those following the unfolding events in Iran, Human Rights News Agency recently released a comprehensive report on the protests, calling them the “biggest demonstration against the hijab in modern history”.


Originally published at Caldron Pool. Photo by Bess Hamiti.

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)