Featured post

Why can't everyone condemn Hamas?

Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short. I am shocked by the willin...

Monday 30 October 2023

Too Many Useful Idiots

This post is directed to all journalists and commentators who serve to form opinions in our chaotic world.  If you qualify, and if you published Hamas' claims of Israel's bombing of a hospital resulting in the death of 500 people, then you should look in the mirror, and ask yourself the question, "Am I a useful idiot?" 

If you did, you have been and are being used by Hamas. You accept their lies without question while pointing the finger at Israel without checking the facts on the ground. You provide cover for heinous acts against civilians while equivocating about condemning such atrocities. You are an accomplice to all that follows. Sure your complicity may be unintended, but by negating the horror of Hamas' barbarism by some sort of moral equivalence you condone it, and in effect encourage it. Your lies had a direct effect. They caused the cancellation of high level diplomatic meetings between Biden and Arab leaders and launched massive anti-Israel marches in much of the Western World. Your implicit support for Hamas prolongs the war and will cause further casualties on both sides.

As a journalist, you have one job to report the facts without fear or favour. If you don't have the facts, you should say so and report nothing at all. 

More than a week after this event, I have only seen one half-hearted apology from the New York Times. Every media organisation that spread the lie should apologise for accepting Hamas' lies without checking the facts and to correct the record. We are waiting.

So really, have you acted as a useful idiot? Many would think you have!

Saturday 28 October 2023

Innocent civilians?

The many marches in our streets decry the death of Gaza's civilians caught in the Israeli bombing of Gaza with "These are innocent people.", "The blockade is a collective punishment." 
I am sure many are, but given that many of Gaza's 'civilians' are Hamas one day and civilians the next it is a difficult claim.

Even more disturbing is a recent X post by Victor Davis Hansen that exposes the 'innocent civilian' claims. His post is rather long but here is a snippet.

"Purportedly, free apartments and $10,000 bounties were offered by the Hamas leadership to Gazans who brought back Israeli hostages. And at that moment, though not now, there seemed to be hundreds of takers zealously following the Hamas death squads into Israel—including a few who had been prior guest workers in border kibbutzes.

That picture of eager civilian involvement was apparently confirmed by videos that emerged from the Gazan street, as the Israeli captives and dead were spit upon, struck, and reviled by civilian mobs—at least in the heady days after news of the easy killing of Jews in Israeli but before the IDF aerial response."

Read the full post here

So are they all innocent civilians? No, neither are they all civilians nor innocent.

Tuesday 24 October 2023

Why are our leaders ignoring the unexplained rise in Non-COVID mortality?

In recent years, Western developed countries like the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have witnessed a concerning trend - a notable increase in excess non-COVID deaths. While the focus has been primarily on the COVID-19 pandemic, it's essential to shed light on this unexpected and unexplained surge in mortality that has largely gone uninvestigated by our leaders.

Here are some key points to consider:
  1. Excess Mortality Rates In these countries, excess deaths, which are deaths beyond what would be expected based on historical data, have been on the rise. Figures show a substantial increase, ranging from 5% to 20% in the years 2021, 2022, and even continuing into 2023.
  2. Lack of Investigation Despite these alarming statistics, there has been a surprising lack of investigation into the underlying causes of these excess non-COVID deaths. Our political leaders, medical professionals, and even the media have not given this issue the attention it deserves, raising questions about their responsibilities in addressing unexpected changes in mortality rates.
  3. Call for Action It's time for a comprehensive investigation into the factors contributing to excess non-COVID deaths. Understanding the root causes and developing effective strategies to mitigate this trend should be a top priority.

In conclusion, while the COVID-19 pandemic rightfully demanded significant attention, we cannot ignore the, simultaneous and subsequent, unexplained increase in excess non-COVID deaths. It is the duty of our leaders, politicians, healthcare experts, and the media to investigate and address this issue to protect the health and well-being of our societies.This is urgent and overdue!

Friday 20 October 2023

What can Israel do to protect its citizens?

Following the horrendous terrorist attack on Israeli civilians by Hamas, Israel has declared war not on Gaza, not on Palestinian civilians, but on Hamas. Waging war on Hamas, ensconced in a built-up city surrounded by Palestinian civilians, presents very serious military challenges.

At the same time waging a war against a foe that has no ethical constraints also presents a different set of ethical challenges. Hamas has perpetrated the most horrendous atrocities in their attack on civilians. They raped, burnt, decapitated, over 1000 women, children, the elderly, and even babies. They have taken hundreds of Israeli civilians as hostages, and will again use their own population as hostages, and human shields. Many Western Leaders, including Joe Biden and Anthony Albanese, remind Israel to obey the 'rules of war'. Yet Hamas has absolutely no intention of following any such ‘rules of war”. Hamas has built its infrastructure in schools, mosques and hospitals, and uses the media to claim Israel perpetrates war crimes even when Israel targets the very launch points of terrorist rockets.

This strategy has worked for Hamas well in the past. It only takes a bombing of a hospital together with a few pictures or videos of victims to mobilize a worldwide outcry condemning Israel.

This was demonstrated just this week when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. This led to immediate widespread condemnation of Israel, even before the facts could be fully uncovered. Jordan cancelled a meeting with Biden, Trudeau denounced Israel, and even Albanese again reminded Israel of the rules of war. However, evidence clearly shows that rather than being an Israeli bomb, the explosion was caused by a missile launched by Islamic Jihad that misfired and fell on the hospital parking lot. Interception of communications between Hamas operatives also proves that Hamas knew this even before it called in its media supporters to spread the lie.

So how does Israel follow the rules of war? What is a proportional response? How does Israel protect its citizens, free the hostages, and eliminate Hamas while minimizing the loss of life of Palestinian civilians?

Difficult questions. But who better to shed some light than Alan Dershowitz, emeritus law professor at Harvard? Dershowitz recently posted a discussion on this very subject on an episode of his ‘Dershow’ titled Hamas, Human Shields and Civilians.

I recommend you watch the episode yourself, but here are some of the key points; - 
  • The rules of war do not restrict a military's response to any attack as long as it is directed at the military of the attacking force.
  • The right to self defence allows a disproportionate response, an overwhelming response, as long as it is directed at the opposing military and military targets 
  • The principle of proportionality requires that any attack against a military target must be evaluated taking into account the likelihood of collateral damage on civilians. 
  • An attack on a hospital operating as a hospital with possibly hundreds of civilians and several enemy militants and arms would not pass this principle. 
  • At the same time, an attack on a mosque with multiple enemy combatants with just a few civilians would be acceptable, despite the collateral harm to civilians. 
  • The judgement is made by the military. 
Of course, this is a very short summary, I suggest you watch the video.

In response to Hamas' attack, Israel has closed its borders to Gaza and stopped supplying it with water and electricity. (One could of course ask why doesn't Gaza have its own sources of both. After all, it has received substantial aid over the years and it could easily have built desalination plants and power stations. But it seems they have used all their aid money to build rockets and terror infrastructure. ) Israel has called up reservists and stationed a large ground force ready for a ground attack. It has urged the civilian population to leave Gaza City. This is no easy task of course, and Hamas is telling the population to stay put. Nevertheless, large numbers have left the city.
Israel has committed to turn on both electricity and water once the hostages are returned. They have also been asking Egypt to open its border with Gaza to allow humanitarian aid into the city.

Certainly, the civilians in Gaza have experienced massive upheaval in their lives. No doubt there have been civilian deaths as the extensive bombing will have consequences. And I have total sympathy for them, for they are also victims. Victims of their Hamas leaders.

Disappointingly but not surprisingly it has only taken one week for the sympathy of the world to be washed away by a whole sea of Palestinian supporters. Supporters who seem to have lost their moral compass. They march, shouting antisemitic tropes and denouncing Israel and all Jews. It is unseemly and dangerous. They empower the terrorists when they should be doing the opposite. 

What would they do if they were in Israel's position? What do they think Israel should do to protect its citizens? What would they think was reasonable?

Given that none of this would have happened to Gazan civilians if Hamas had not launched its attack, if you need to blame anyone it should be the aggressor. After all, whose fault is it if your own citizens die as a result of the war you started?

Despite the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli mob blaming Israel for the death of Gaza's civilians, that view is morally bankrupt. Each and every death resulting from Hamas' direct attack, and Israel's response to prevent such attacks must be blamed on Hamas. It is as simple as that.

Sunday 15 October 2023

Why can't everyone condemn Hamas?

Following Hamas' atrocities in Israel, the media are awash with commentary, so I will keep my comments short.

I am shocked by the willingness of so many people living in Western democracies to use moral blinkers to avoid condemning Hamas for its barbaric acts. You do not have to agree with Israel in any way, nor do you have to give up your support for Palestinians, to damn Hamas' massacre, rape and abduction of babies, women and the elderly. Yet so many are siding with Hamas. It is appalling and incomprehensible.

Perhaps these people have been fed too long on anti-Israel rhetoric and perhaps they do not know the history. If so Ben Shapiro's recent video may correct some misconceptions.
Watch the video here ;-

or on YouTube at 

Saturday 14 October 2023

Perspectives on addressing the GAP

In one of my recent discussions on X (Twitter), with Captain Chaos, I commented that the GAP could be addressed in ways that did not require changing the Constitution. I then sent a link to my post Are we perpetuating the GAP? This then led to a range of comments. At this point, I thought I could address this better in a post. So this post provides a bit more clarification on my post as well as addressing Captain Chaos' points. 

So here is a recap of the discussion so far; -

followed by ; -

and finally, 


Captain Chaos did agree with my response in a post. So here goes.

Before addressing Captain Chaos' points, let me re-state my position on a couple of issues. 
My position on the Voice is primarily because the proposed Constitutional change would re-introduce racial discrimination, eliminated in the referendum of 1967, into our foundational document. (More details at Why I am Voting NO on the Voice ). As I noted in that post I do not have a strong issue with legislating the Voice and evaluating if it works. 

However, we have tried multiple bodies representing indigenous Australians all with the objective of being an intermediary between the local communities and all levels of government. For example, if you read the mission statement for the NIAA you will find it aligns closely with the intent of the Voice. So while these bodies have been established in the past the GAP has not been reduced. So we really have to find out why that hasn't worked and consider alternative suggestions. 

With regard to Captain Chaos's points

  • As a city based observer, is relatable to 'bureaucracies' and those without knowledge & experience doing what they think is needed as opposed to knowing what is needed.
Yes, I do not claim to know 'what is needed'. Nor do I claim specific knowledge or experience. My suggestions are exactly that, suggestions. 

  • You overlook the why. Why is a First Nation's male more likely to go to prison than University? Why are there problems with social cohesion?
I do not overlook the why, but admit I do not go into the specifics. I have not analysed the individual issues that make the difference between indigenous and non-indigenous but rather focused on what is different in the way we govern the two groups. So if we are getting different outcomes then maybe our governing them differently is contributing to the different outcomes.

  • Me personally I would not have implied that they are more violent, abusive and truancy inclined. Do you have actual evidence for that?
The statistics on domestic violence, truancy, and incarceration rates speak for themselves.

Some references;-

Indigenous Australians make up almost 30% of hospitalisations due to domestic violence, report finds  - while indigenous people represent ~3% of the population

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander prisoners accounted for 32% of all prisoners  again while ATI represented just 3% of the population

  • Also note the intervention did suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. Since that time the insinuation that there is an epidemic of abuse (child) has been left unsubstantiated In fact, in recent months the unsubstantiated allegation was repeated by both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton, without evidence That's been reported in the media & both Jacinta Price and Peter Dutton have failed to make reports of the alleged abuse that they are required to do, by law, to investigating authorities. I could continue, however, I think what I have outlined suffices, check your preconceptions
The 'intervention' was in response to the Little Children are Sacred report published in June 2007, being the findings of an inquiry into child sexual abuse in the NT commissioned by the Northern Territory Government. The report provided shocking evidence of domestic violence and sexual abuse. So it was not without a basis. Also with regard to Jacinta Price, I think she has personal experience through her exposure to indigenous life. You cannot both accept there is a GAP and then dismiss the symptoms that are evidence of the GAP.

Again I do not profess to be anything but an interested observer. If we have invested substantially in closing the GAP over decades, and have seen no results, we should certainly have a good look at what we have been doing, and look to do something else.

I am of course open to further discussion.

Wednesday 11 October 2023

Rishi Sunak delivers

Rishi Sunak set the template for how to respond to the barbaric atrocities perpetrated against innocents in Israel. He attended a service at Finchley United Synagogue and delivered a heartfelt speech that resonated not only with the Jewish community but all civilised people learning of the massacre.

The speech is available here 

He did not hesitate to call out the weak, apologists, both politicians and media commentators, who provide lukewarm condemnation of Hamas and use weasel words labelling the perpetrators as 'militants'. 

"The people who support Hamas are fully responsible for this appalling attack.
They are not militants. They are not freedom fighters. 
They are terrorists. 
And their barbaric acts, are acts of evil."

His clarity is a lesson, people do not want our commentators to be 'meek and gentle with these butchers'. 
They want the moral clarity that there is never any justification for attacks on civilians.

Tuesday 10 October 2023

What is a proportionate response?

The world has just witnessed an act of barbarism! It is hard to accept human beings perpetrating the atrocities we have seen. Israel has vowed to destroy the barbarians responsible and to ensure it cannot happen again. Most Western leaders have expressed their support and reaffirmed Israel's right to self-defence. A few, however, have qualified their support, demanding that any response by Israel be 'proportionate'.

What, I ask, is a proportionate response to such heinous war crimes? The common use of the word 'proportionate means 'of relative equal magnitude'. What would be of relatively equal magnitude to 5000 rockets launched indiscriminately towards large built-up areas, the massacre of over 1000 mainly women and children of all ages, and the brutal abduction of over 150 hostages.

Would a proportionate response be randomly firing 5000 rockets back into Gaza, capturing 1000 men, women and children, massacring them, and then abducting 150 random civilians off the streets of Gaza? No one could argue that would not be of equal magnitude.

What would the civilised world say of that? What would Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong say to that? After all, in one of her earliest tweets on the attack by Hamas she added; - 

"Australia urges the exercise of restraint & protection of civilian lives."

Restraint? Protection of civilian lives? Would that be proportionate? I don't think many would think so. Did Hamas show restraint? Did they protect civilian lives? Certainly not!

Of course, she is not alone. Many, too many, so-called leaders and commentators urge restraint on Israel when they would never do so for other countries faced with terrorist attacks. Did they urge restraint on the US after the 9/11 attack? Of course not. The US started the war on terror, invaded Afghanistan, and later Iraq. They did not hold back. Nor did their citizens want them to. It seems Israel alone is singled out for such advice on proportionality, restraint, and the protection of civilians.

I hope these leaders never face Israel's dilemma, but if they do, I expect they would truly identify with Israel, perhaps for the first time, and then say proportionality be damned. If these barbarians target my people, we will use disproportionate, unprecedented, unforgettable force to ensure that these perpetrators will forever remember there are severe, brutal, disproportionate, consequences to such atrocities. Consequences harsh enough to build a wall of deterrence that lasts for decades.

Monday 9 October 2023

J'Accuse all journalists of betraying their duty

 J'Accuse, I accuse all journalists of betraying their sacred duty. A duty not just to their profession, but to the very soul of humanity. Have you forgotten your role as the watchdogs of society? All journalists? Yes, every single one who has turned a blind eye to the truth, who has failed to probe the uncomfortable questions, who has silently observed the spreading web of deception.

We see those who know the answers but dare not unveil them, those who allow the fabrications of others to fester in the public mind, those who cower in fear of losing their paychecks, their stature, or becoming the target of their peers' scorn. Is this the legacy they wish to leave?

Had they but found the courage to speak out, to seek the unvarnished truth, to do the job they were called to do, our world would be different.

Consider what we would all have gained had they done their job by;-

  • exposing sexual abuse by Harvey Weinstein, Rolf Harris, Bill Cosby, or Jeffrey Epstein when they first heard of instances
  • calling out China's infiltration into the Western World through stealing intellectual property via the 1000 Minds projects, the harassment of ex-Chinese citizens via the illegal Chinese Police Stations or its tentacles in the upper echelons of governments worldwide
  • reporting honestly about the Antifa-led riots and not condoning them by calling them 'mainly peaceful' 
  • reporting honestly and accurately on the riot at the Capitol on Jan 6 and not mislabeling it an 'insurrection' and the 'worst since the Civil War'
  • calling out the origin of the COVID virus as most likely from the Wuhan WIV
  • not encouraging mandatory vaccination when using an emergency authorised vaccine
  • discouraging climate hysteria by providing an accurate IPCC perspective and calling out terms such as 'global boiling' 
  • calling out the immoral support of Hamas and Hezbollah by European countries calling it aid knowing the money is diverted to funding terrorists
  • accurately reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop 
  • exposing Joe Biden's cognitive deficit before he was elected. There was ample evidence for every one.
A free society will only stay free if the Fourth Estate does not squander its mandate to report the truth without fear or favour. 

You have one job, do it!

Saturday 7 October 2023

"Making Life Even Worse for Us"

 I recently came across the Quadrant Article about Bess Nungarrayi Price dated 5th September 2023 titled "Making Life Even Worse for Us" and felt that every Australian should read it. Seeing I had missed it for a month, perhaps it was worth putting out a post dedicated to it.

It would be unfair for me to quote it in its entirety as Quadrant has published it and would like you to subscribe ( See Quadrant online).

Nevertheless I include some snippets in order to encourage you to read it in full; - 

This is Bess Nungarrayi Price’s foreword to the new book The Spirit Behind the Voice: The Religious Dimension of the “Voice” Proposal, edited by Gabriël Moens and Augusto Zimmermann and published by Connor Court, retailing for $29.95. Stephen Chavura, Senior Lecturer in History at Campion College in Sydney, says of this book:

“One could be forgiven for thinking that the only Christian response to the Voice to Parliament is Yes, if we went by the pronouncements of prominent churchmen and theologians. But I think these prominent churchmen and theologians are misguided on this issue. It is my conviction that when all things are considered, Christians should vote No to this divisive constitutional change. This book is a unique contribution to the debate in that it takes the question of the Voice to Parliament very seriously from a Christian, Jewish and secular point of view. I urge everyone who is pondering how to vote on this momentous question to carefully read this book and give serious consideration to voting No."

And some snippets from Bess Price from the Foreword to her book; -

"Naturally those who control the national debate are those people of indigenous descent who speak English and are well educated kardiya way. They have access to the media and politicians and are the loudest in their criticism of governments and kardiya (white men) in general. They criticise the old missionaries, but they don’t live by the Old Law and never have. They romanticise it, creating what I call a Disneyland version. They never talk about the down side, the acceptance of violence as a way to settle conflicts, the misogyny and acceptance of violence against women, the forcing of young girls into marriage with old men, the belief in sorcery. These old ways still cause a lot of problems, like continued violence against women, family feuding and the humbugging that forces so many to give their money to addicted kin for grog and gambling. All of these things come from the culture we were taught as children. The so-called First Nations Leaders tell us that all of these things are caused by kardiya, by racism and colonisation. They have made everything worse but all of these problems come from our own culture. The “leaders” call any kardiya racist if they say this and they put great effort into “cancelling” Aboriginal people like me who want the truth to be known."


"My joining the Country Liberal Party has made me anathema to the Labor Party since. They think they own us, and they can’t tolerate our dissenting from their narrative. And they don’t forget.

My family was denied royalties that we were entitled to by the Central Land Council. My father’s role as a senior traditional owner for the country and Dreamings involved were simply denied. When we made a formal complaint we were denied the most basic natural justice. We have witnessed violence at Central Land Council convened meetings. They don’t hesitate to use intimidation and manipulation to achieve their goals. We are at their mercy. I was told to my face by a white Central Land Council staff member, “I am a lawyer. I can tell you that you can’t win.” But I have not given up."


"The Voice advocates are polite and well-mannered in the light of day but many are offensive and aggressive in the shadows. My daughter, Senator Nampijinpa Price, and I have been threatened with death several times. In the Northern Territory we women are used to that. We are routinely vilified in obscene, racist and misogynist terms simply because we disagree with the Left’s narrative. GetUp sends young Aboriginal women, mostly from Down South, to campaign against us in elections in favour of kardiya who have done nothing for us. We have been ignored or defamed by the mainstream media. I was awarded an Australia Medal on Australia Day this year. I was contacted by commercial media from all over the country but I have not been contacted once by the ABC, even in my own town of Alice Springs. The Green/Left wish we didn’t exist. We have a different point of view that they don’t want to be heard."

and finally,

"I will be voting No and I urge all Australians with a conscience, whatever their religion, to do the same. I am sick of burying our children, seeing education denied to them, seeing them incarcerated, living in dire poverty and taken from families that don’t know how to care for them. We want real solutions and decision-makers willing to listen to all of us, whatever our politics and the languages we speak. We need open ears, not a constitutionally embedded, bureaucratised, highly selective Voice set up and run by those who have controlled the narrative and the funds for decades while everything got worse for us."

Some home 'truths' that we do not hear from most of the media. Well worth reading the whole article at "Making Life Even Worse for Us".

Thursday 5 October 2023

The Voice : Consider the Consequences

With but one week to go, we are in the 'home stretch' of this extended Voice referndum. Given the 24/7 media we now know what 'saturation' advertising really means. So no doubt you are getting 'over it'. Despite this if you are still in doubt about your vote, let me add a few words to try to sway you.

Despite the fine words by many a YES advocate downplaying the impact of the Voice, never mind the details, you owe it to our indigenous citizens, it is the moral thing to do, nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a momentous decision that will shape the nation's future. The Voice referendum carries significant implications for the country.

I have already recorded my reasons for voting NO (see Why I am voting NO to the Voice ), however,  that was not an exhaustive list, and in this note want to focus on some of the consequences of a successful YES vote.

One of the commitments Anthony Albanese announced on election night was that he would "implement the Uluṟu statement in full". The authors of this statement have made it clear that the Voice is just the initial step in 3 stage process emblazoned on many a T-Shirt " Voice, Treaty, Truth".

While Albanese has tried repeatedly to divert discussion from Treaty or Truth, preferring to narrowly focus our attention on the 'Vibe', it is nonsensical to simply vote YES and ignore what follows. After all Albo has repeatedly stated that he wants to implement the Uluru statement in full. So, we cannot but conclude that the Treaty and Truth steps are the necessary consequences of a YES vote.

Given the government's refusal to even discuss these steps there is no detail or formal policy position to review. However, we can rely on the authors of the Uluru statement to gauge their thinking. There are some 100 pages of notes recording formal discussions between the authors that are available The full document is printed in full here: Uluru Statement from the Heart. They cover a wide range of topics and these in turn trigger a whole range of questions. Questions like; -
  • Questions about Treaty
    • How does a country create a treaty with a subset of its own citizens?
    • Who signs the treaty when government representatives are indigenous themselves?
    • Will there be reparations?
    • How much, who will pay and who will receive it?
  • Questions about Truth telling and its implications?
    • Have we not been telling the truth until now?
    • Who determines what is true?
    • Will the process build unity or cause more division ?
I will leave you to fill in the possible answers to these, but you should consider Voice, Treaty and Truth as a package. If the referendum passes Treaty and Truth are sure to follow. So if you don't like the possible implications of either of these additional processes and their consequences, you should vote NO.

Monday 2 October 2023

Examining Excess Mortality Beyond COVID: A Call for Open Discourse - updated 3 October

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has been grappling with the staggering toll it has taken on lives. However, there's an alarming factor that has largely remained in the shadows – excess mortality. This surge in mortality, which extends beyond the direct impact of the virus, has not received the attention it deserves from politicians, the medical establishment, or the media. What's more concerning is the minimization and censorship of any attempts to link excess mortality to vaccine side effects by major tech companies.

Recent studies have shed light on the unexpected magnitude of excess mortality due to vaccination, challenging the narrative we've been led to believe. These studies have presented findings that go beyond questioning vaccine efficacy; they raise a troubling possibility that COVID vaccines might not only have failed in protecting the population but may have contributed to greater mortality than the virus itself.

I learned of the first of these studies via Dr John Campbell's YouTube video ONS, overall deaths in unvaccinated lower that has now been removed. Not sure why?
Nevertheless I have managed to find the source for Dr Campbell’s video. It was from this site the nobody who knows everybody The specific article is ANNUS HORRIBILIS - In England - Were there Over 154,300 Extra Deaths because of Covid-19 Vaccination Status ?

The paper provides a summary of a relatively straight forward analysis of publicly available data in UK, It calculates the overall mortality rates  for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK over identical period. The surprising, really shocking, result is that the mortality rate for the unvaccinated is lower than the mortality rate for the vaccinatedThis demands explanation.

The paper is very detailed and provides extensive source material, but I have not checked it, so must remain cautious, especially given that John Campbell video was removed. Not sure if it was a case of censorship or whether John decided the data was suspect.

The second source for concern is a large study COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere released by Correlation, a Canadian not for profit organisation. This is an extensive research paper looking at vaccine induced mortality in the Southern hemisphere during the COVID Pandemic. Again it has a number of distressing conclusions. 

The paper is based on 17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere and equatorial region. A definite causal link is shown between many peaks in all-cause mortality and rapid vaccine rollouts. The authors quantify the fatal toxicity risk per injection, which is exceedingly large in the most elderly.

and most alarmingly concludes vaccination caused

17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths worldwide, from 13.50
billion injections up to 2 September 2023, ...(1 death per 470 living
persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.

The implications of these findings are profound and require immediate attention from our leaders and society as a whole. If these studies hold true, it signifies a monumental failure in our efforts to safeguard our citizens' health. Therefore, it is imperative that we shift the spotlight onto this issue and encourage open and honest discussions.

To address this matter effectively, several critical steps must be taken:

  • Open Discussion: We need our leaders and experts to engage in open discussions about these findings. This is not a time for political bias or suppression of differing views. All voices, regardless of their perspective, should be heard and considered.
  • Thorough Medical Investigation: The medical establishment must conduct comprehensive studies on the topic. These studies should be rigorous, transparent, and impartial. The results should be published in peer-reviewed articles, allowing the scientific community to scrutinize and validate the findings.
  • Media Responsibility: Media outlets must play a responsible role in disseminating information. It is their duty to present the findings without sensationalism or censorship. The public has the right to be informed about potential risks associated with vaccines, as well as the benefits.
  • Tech Transparency: Big tech companies should resist the urge to suppress information. Censorship, particularly in matters of public health, only fuels distrust. Instead, they should ensure that all perspectives have a platform for discussion.

At this stage, we cannot definitively say whether the vaccines have caused more harm than the virus itself. What we do have is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that there is more to this story than we've been led to believe. Only through open, honest, and transparent communication can we address this critical issue and chart a path forward that prioritizes the well-being of our citizens. The time for a comprehensive, open examination of excess mortality is overdue.