I’m fully aware that Covid and vaccines are no longer really the current thing, indeed, they’ve been superseded by at least three or four newer and more flashy current things. The Queen died, there’s inflation and economic misery, possible energy shortages and power cuts, Amazon has turned Tolkien into a wraith which stalks our cultural space, haunting us with what it once was, and migrants are literally swimming into Dover as I write.
Indeed, among my peer-group in Dissident Right content creation, I’m still wearing flares and massive collars while they’ve all moved on to punk.
However, I genuinely believe that a crime of gargantuan proportions was committed against the people of the earth, my country and my family. I’m certainly not alone in feeling this and a crime does not stop being crime because more spanners have been thrown into the machinery of the discourse.
A huge swathe of the public know that ‘‘something isn’t right’’. In a recent video, Andy Nowicki spoke of the aesthetics of ‘‘High Strangeness’’ wherein we see, we know, that the picture on the wall is hanging lopsided, but it is demanded of us that we believe it is straight.
The Guardian is here to tell you that the crooked picture is actually straight.
The author of the article in question, Devi Sridhar, is not an investigative journalist, but a technocrat. Sridhar’s Wikipedia page is basically just a list of ‘‘Global Governance’’ institutions and NGO’s, Sridhar has spent her career jumping from one to another. They’re all there; Gates, Chatham House, The WEF, The WHO.
Any pretence of objectivity has long since taken a walk. This isn’t even a corrupt journalist who’s had their mortgage paid for, the foot-soldiers of the Technocracy simply write the articles themselves.
The context of this article, then, is that we’re witnessing an unsettling amount of excess deaths across the western world which are not related to Covid-19. As somebody who played a key-role in the pandemic response and the public health policies of the last few years, Devi Sridhar, the expert, has been trotted out to make sure the narrative is straight within the minds of Guardian readers.
It’s likely to be a mix of factors: Covid is making us sicker and more vulnerable to other diseases (research suggests it may contribute to delayed heart attacks, strokes, and dementia); an ageing population; an extremely hot summer; and an overloaded health service meaning that people are dying from lack of timely medical care. This winter, the cost of living crisis and concerns about fuel poverty will add to these contributory factors, given the links between deprivation and ill health. So we may see these excess death numbers continue.
In other words, everything, literally everything is responsible for surging death rates except the experimental vaccinations. Indeed, as if by magic, the symptoms associated with sudden death and myocarditis are being attributed to ‘‘Long Covid’’. If the Long Covid hypothesis was correct then the people who took the vaccines would be dying at lower, or equal rates than the unvaccinated people. However, we’re not informed of this, or even if that played a factor during the research.
Let me put it this way. A day after my dog eats a dead and decomposing rabbit she has an upset stomach. Rather than entertain the idea that perhaps the rabbit corpse made her ill, I assume that it was her tinned dog food and work towards my conclusions based on that. Perhaps the dog food was out of date, maybe it was damaged during the heat-wave, and so on.
The excess mortality puzzle has been weaponised by some to argue that this is a delayed consequence of lockdown. In essence, this is to say that mandatory restrictions on mixing and stay-at-home legal orders, as well as turning the NHS into a Covid health service during the first and second waves of infection, prevented people from being diagnosed or treated for other conditions such as cancer, heart disease, or even depression – and that those long-hidden conditions are now killing people.
Within the alternative media milieu there are differing scales of skepticism in regards to the Covid saga. They range from the harder conspiratorial narratives which hold the view that the vaccine is a depopulation tool and Covid was a ruse to create the conditions for it, to a more moderate view that the whole sorry episode was a tale of institutional corruption, a power-grab and money-making bonanza for the elites. The ‘‘softest’’ position of the skeptics is that lockdowns were primarily a result of incompetence which were more destructive than the pandemic itself. This is the equivalent of the economics debate surrounding mass immigration, it is the safer ground for the establishment to debate upon.
Small surprise, then, that Sridhar chooses this line to refute. After all, she is probably correct, the heavy toll on the NHS more than likely is partly to blame for the increase in deaths. Furthermore, Sridhar when arguing on this ground, can always fall back on the amount of people supposedly saved because of the lockdowns and even if that fails there’s always the ‘‘we did our best in difficult circumstances’’ canard.
I can’t help but note that Sridhar is attacking the Motte and not the Bailey, that is to say the moderate position and not the radical one. It’s as if the establishment no longer has the confidence to call out conspiracies on depopulation agendas and micro-chips. Not that such views are necessarily true, but that the ‘‘experts’’ simply don’t want to ‘‘go there’’.
Sridhar then spends a substantial portion of her article blaming the unvaccinated, climate change, the elderly, an overworked NHS and Covid itself for the high mortality rate — despite the fact the excess deaths people are citing are specifically non-Covid deaths.
Instead of illogical arguments about whether lockdown was responsible for excess mortality – entirely without evidence – it’s worth taking a closer look at the data, which suggests that, in fact, it’s a mix of the new burden of Covid-19 and an overloaded health service, with days of extreme heat thrown in.
The article then concludes with:
As always, a clearer picture will emerge with more research and analysis over time. For now, we should be focusing on how to develop better treatments and vaccines to bring the mortality rate of Covid-19 down further, investing in the NHS to ensure quality and timely care, and looking at how to better cope with extreme weather events. Global events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change are making us all sicker. If we could just acknowledge their impact across political lines, we could work together on solutions.
Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh
Excess deaths have been steadily increasing since April and we had to wait until September for one of our Young Global Leaders who has access to every institution and technocratic power centre to even address it —by doubling down on the wider agenda of Global Governance and technocracy.
If you aren’t satisfied with her explanation as to why young boys are now dropping dead of heart attacks playing football then you’re certainly not alone. The replies to Devi Sridhar’s Twitter post shilling her article speak volumes:
I continue to be fascinated by this subject not just because I think a huge crime has been committed, or the riddle of what exactly did, and will, happen, but that I simply do not understand how the power-structure can, or will, deal with this problem. At present the system is flatly refusing to accept that vaccines are in any way even partly responsible for the soaring mortality rate, and increasingly the public simply isn’t buying it anymore.
Longtime viewers and readers will know that sometimes I enjoy to don my armchair general cigar and brandy and speculate on possible moves an enemy can make. What moves, then, can the current power-structure make, or what likely outcomes are possible regarding excess mortality?
1. The Data Changes
Undoubtedly the best scenario for everyone. After the suspected further spike in mortality during the winter months (which Sridhar agrees will happen) excess mortality declines and numbers settle on pre-pandemic norms. The public stop accusing public health officials of mass murder and confidence in the system gradually returns.
Alternatively, the manner in which the data on mortality is collected suddenly changes and the result is the same, albeit with certain quarters of the alternative media drawing attention to the suddenly shifted goalposts.
2. Partial Concession
A partial concession on the safety of vaccines seems to be the angle that prominent skeptics such as Alex Berenson are angling for. Here, the system concedes that a certain amount of excess mortality, lets say 5-10%, is indeed down to the vaccination roll-out. This, of course, is a trap being prepared for the public health bodies and politicians because of the extraordinarily aggressive nature of the vaccination policy.
The system appears to be aware of this trap, hence the article by Devi Sridhar which amounts to a ‘‘Not one step back’’ narrative framing.
3. Full Concession
The absolute least likely turn of events is an open admittance that the vaccine roll-out has been a catastrophic failure and responsible for untold death and misery.
Needless to say, a full disclosure and concession would lead to the fall of governments, a multitude of lawsuits and criminal hearings and quite possibly serious public unrest. There is no incentive for the power-structure to take this route but it remains a possibility, no matter how astronomical the odds of it happening are.
4. The Great Clear-out
A scenario which saw widespread change within the political class and the tentacles of the various institutions and policy making apparatus would itself lead to a scenario of full concession, albeit this time with the ‘‘good guys’’ responsible. Perhaps a politician such as Ron DeSantis and those sympathetic to the MAGA movement see a strategic opportunity in the public anger and ride the wave into office.
This, I would argue, is perhaps a long-term possibility. Certainly the more dissident factions of the Republican movement are the tip of the spear in terms of narrative skepticism. Outside of the U.S I see very little potential.
5. The Sacrificial Lambs
Anyone who has enjoyed a good Mafia movie knows that once a criminal network feels the heat and fears the repercussions of their actions, heads begin to roll. This scenario has already been hinted at in America with the media organs of the Democrat Party tentatively testing the waters for pinning the vaccine program on Trump.
The sacrificial lambs play would likely emerge directly after the partial concessions move. Rather than endure a tortuous and drawn-out episode of buck-passing the ‘‘Bosses’’ will throw selected bureaucrats, administrators and politicians into the meat-grinder of public fury. Candidates for this would be Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and possibly the obnoxious Dan Andrews in Australia, Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern. These leaders would of course simply blame others, and the buck-passing would continue downwards. The result would be much airing of dirty secrets but not much in the way of actual accountability and punishment.
6. The Status Quo
The most likely scenario in the short-term is that nothing at all happens. The narrative grip is tightened and the reasons for the excess deaths not fully investigated or honestly addressed. While this certainly seems to be the logical short-term play from the establishment, it does carry a number of ‘‘side effects’’ over the long-term.
Public distrust and a feeling of having been lied to is already spreading like wildfire among the populace. This is then compounded by the fact the public is expected to go along with a multitude of other dubious schemes and capers such as the climate change agenda, inflation, potential food shortages and soaring energy bills.
The situation as it stands now has public bodies hemorrhaging all of the social capital gained through their propaganda campaigns and applied psychology techniques. Ironically public distrust is spreading like a virus and the system is still trying to find ways to ‘‘stop the spread’’.
I am not implying or suggesting that the excess deaths are entirely, or even mainly a result of vaccines. Almost my entire family have had these injections which they were led to believe were safe, and that the threat from the virus warranted it.
Both were lies. And now the lies continue.
I find it intolerable the degree to which we’re held in contempt by the Devi Sridhars of this world. This is a woman who opens her Twitter notifications and is met with a multitude of accusations that she’s responsible for massive amounts of death and suffering. Yet she shows not a shred of humility or compassion, indeed, her primary reaction is to protect the narrative and obfuscate, buy time and muddy the waters until somebody somewhere figures out how the hell they’re going to deal with this.
They’re sitting on a tinderbox, and it’s time to light a match.