Did COVID Injections Also Kill D'Angelo? New South Korean Study Demonstrates that COVID Boosters Increase the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer by 125%

/

D'Angelo passed away on 10/14/25 without much attention from massa media. According to media reports he died from pancreatic cancer in New York City at the age of 51. A family member told People that D'Angelo had been in a hospice for two weeks, and had been hospitalized for months.

From [HERE] COVID-19 vaccines and boosters — both mRNA and non-mRNA — pose an increased risk of six types of cancer and a 27% higher risk of cancer overall, according to a recent South Korean study of over 8 million people.

Four South Korean researchers published the report last week as a letter in Biomarker Research, a Springer Nature journal.

According to the study, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are associated with a higher risk of breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer, across all vaccine types and age groups.

Mainstream medical commentators were quick to dismiss the findings, with MedPageToday describing it as “flawed.” But other medical and scientific experts disagreed.

“In plain terms: both major COVID-19 vaccine platforms appear to be carcinogenic,” epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote in a post on Substack.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a medical oncologist, told The Defender the study builds on other recent findings but “is the first to show that cDNA [non-mRNA] and mRNA vaccines are associated with cancer risk, suggesting that the spike protein is directly carcinogenic.”

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week on his YouTube show that the research marks “the largest-scale study so far” examining the association between the COVID-19 shots and cancer.

 ‘No vaccine technology was free from cancer risk’

According to the study, while the carcinogenic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 “has been hypothetically proposed,” there has been little research on the potential cancer risk from COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers said the “shared structures” contained within the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, including the spike protein, might mean that the COVID-19 shots are associated with cancer risks.

The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups.

Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including:

  • Overall cancer: 27% higher risk

  • Breast cancer: 20% higher risk

  • Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk

  • Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk

  • Lung cancer: 53% higher risk

  • Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk

  • Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk

The statistical analysis of the results showed that there is a “1 in 1,000 chance that this result arose by chance,” Campbell said.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna showed a 20% higher overall risk of cancer and were most closely linked to a higher risk of breast, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancers.

Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, known as cDNA vaccines and which include the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots, were associated with a 47% higher overall risk of cancer. They were specifically linked to an increased risk of colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers.

Patients who received a mixture of mRNA and cDNA doses also faced an increased risk, with a 34% higher incidence of cancer overall and a close association with a higher risk of breast and thyroid cancers.

“The elevated cancer risks were not confined to one vaccine platform,” Hulscher wrote. “Each vaccine type was associated with a measurable increase in overall cancer — and each had specific cancer sites driving the signal. In other words, no vaccine technology was free of cancer risk in this dataset.”

Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said the data show that among vaccinated people, the cancer risk increases with time.

“The increased risk of cancer for vaccinated subjects rises in a linear fashion over the entire period of the study, at a steeper angle than the unvaccinated curve, and it does not flatten out. The increased incidence just keeps getting bigger. It could go on for decades. It’s truly alarming,” Baker said.

‘Every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks’

The results also showed vaccinated people under 65 years of age were at particular risk of some types of cancer.

“The relatively younger population (individuals under 65 years) was more vulnerable to thyroid and breast cancers; by comparison, the older population (75 years and older) was more susceptible to prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, vaccinated people under age 65 showed an overall increased risk of cancer, while elderly adults — particularly those over 75 — had the highest overall risk.

Vaccinated women also had a relatively higher risk of cancer than vaccinated men, with vaccinated women showing a particularly increased risk of colorectal and thyroid cancers, and vaccinated men showing a higher risk of gastric and lung cancers.

Hulscher wrote:

“Both the overall and site-specific results show a consistent pattern — every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks, though the type and absolute burden varied. Women and the elderly were hit hardest, but no population segment was spared.”

The study’s results also showed that COVID-19 boosters resulted in a substantially higher risk of certain types of cancer. This included a 125% higher risk of pancreatic cancer and a 23% higher risk of gastric cancer.

Dalgleish called the numbers “striking,” saying the jump in risk after booster shots “is an unexpected increase that we are also seeing in the United Kingdom.” [MORE]

‘The More Doses You Get, The Sooner You are Likely to Die’: Japanese Data Suggest COVID Shots Led to Surge in Excess Deaths, Killing People Now

/

From [HERE] People who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated, according to an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people. The data, not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, is impressive in size, but requires further analysis, said CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski.

People who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated, and the risk increased with each additional dose, according to an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people.

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., examined the data on his YouTube show this week. The data were originally released in June as part of a roundtable discussion, which was streamed onlineand led by Yasufumi Murakami, Ph.D., vice director of the Research Center for RNA Science at the Tokyo University of Science.

“The more doses you get, the sooner you are likely to die, within a shorter period,” Murakami said during the roundtable.

In his analysis, Campbell said deaths in the vaccinated group were up to four-and-a-half times higher than in the unvaccinated group. The data also showed that deaths among the vaccinated peaked between 90-120 days after vaccination, with the peak occurring sooner as the number of doses increased.

“If someone had had three doses, the peak might be after about … 120 days,” Campbell said. “But if they had four or five doses, the peak in deaths would be earlier, maybe about 90 days.”

The risk of death in vaccinated people remained elevated for the first year following vaccination, “significantly so for the first 240 days,” whereas for unvaccinated people, “no peak forms, which is the expected” outcome, Campbell said.

Japanese data indicate causal link between vaccinations, excess deaths

In his presentation, Murakami said the data show a clear causal link between vaccinations and excess deaths. Campbell agreed, noting that the excess deaths were “probably due to the vaccine’s influence, with adverse reactions occurring leading to death.”

“If the vaccine had no toxicity or didn’t induce death, there wouldn’t be a peak. That’s the point,” Campbell said.

According to immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D., the spike protein in mRNA COVID-19vaccines, such as those produced by Pfizer and Moderna, is likely a contributing factor to the higher death rate among the vaccinated.

She said:

“The spike protein is highly inflammatory and induces powerful immune reactions against affected cells. Cells transfected and producing spike protein are targeted for destruction, and since the lipid nanoparticles assure any cell can be a spike-producer, including heart cells, it explains much of cardiac-associated deaths.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense, agreed.

“The spike protein is a toxic component of SARS-CoV-2, and unanimously the antigen of choice for all mRNA vaccines,” he said. “The mRNA technology has many components that may be a driving force for increases in excess deaths.”

According to Rose, lipid nanoparticles, which help deliver mRNA throughout the body, can also cause blood clotting, contributing to adverse health events and deaths.

“Many components of the mRNA platform can facilitate disease and death,” Jablonowski said. This includes DNA contaminants that have been identified in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which he said “may trigger a deleterious immune response.”

Jablonowski said the Japanese dataset, which has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, requires further analysis:

“Though 18 million is an impressive number, the size of the dataset doesn’t make it good science — the control does. Without detailed data, it is impossible to distinguish between vaccination-induced death or death of those more likely to be vaccinated.”

But if the dataset includes data for “millions of people within the same narrow age range, the same comorbidity grouping and no difference in confounders” and shows elevated death rates for these groups, then the Japanese data would be enough to “sink the mRNA platform worldwide,” Jablonowski said.

Albert Benavides, founder of VAERSaware.com, has analyzed the Japanese data on his Substack page and in an online dashboard he developed. He said the data “appears to be very sound and in line to what appears and what does not appear in VAERS.”

VAERS is the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

“Japan (2,396 deaths) sits at second place, only behind Germany (2,709 deaths), as the foreign country with the most COVID-19 deaths in VAERS,” Benavides said.

Data ‘enough to raise questions in the minds of all regulators’

The Japanese data are “enough to raise questions in the minds of all regulators for all mRNA products,” Campbell said, though he doesn’t expect it will.

Many researchers have focused their examination of vaccine-related adverse events on the first days following vaccination, he noted. “When it’s been 90 days, 120 days, they kind of lost interest and don’t make the link anymore.”

Yet, the Japanese data confirm findings of other studies that examined the longer-term effects of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

In a March interview, Campbell spoke with Robert Clancy, Ph.D., emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle’s School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy in Australia, who is reviewing data from a separate dataset that indicates a peak in excess deaths three months after vaccination.

In a May analysis, Campbell examined excess death figures from Our World in Data for 20 countries. The data showed that excess deaths remain high in most Western countries — where mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were widely administered — but are lower in countries where mRNA vaccines were less commonly used.

A 2023 analysis by Phinance Technologies found that, in the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines caused more than 300,000 excess deaths, injured 26.6 million people, disabled 1.36 million people, and cost an estimated $147 billion in damage in 2022 alone.

According to a 2023 report in InsuranceNewsNet, U.S. insurance companies expected higher-than-normal payouts from excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Insurers saw death benefits rise 15.4% in 2020, the biggest one-year increase since the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, followed by a record $100.28 billion — nearly double the historic norm — in total death benefits paid out by the industry in 2021.

A paper published in April in the JMA Journal, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Japan Medical Association, found that Japan had “the world’s highest rate” of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses per capita — and “a significant increase in excess deaths in 2022 and 2023.”

“Although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these phenomena, the truth remains to be established because sufficient studies and data disclosures have not been conducted to adequately investigate the possible contribution of mRNA vaccines,” the paper stated. [MORE]

New Report: ‘Garbage Science’ Behind Claims COVID Shots Saved Millions

/

From [HERE] A new report by Canadian researchers challenges widely cited claims that COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives in the U.S.

The authors of a preprint paper published this week by Correlation, a Canadian nonprofit research organization, argue that the claims are based on modelling studies that use flawed assumptions resulting in “fantastic and unverifiable” conclusions.

For example, Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D. — in interviews and in his 2024 congressional testimony — cited a 2022 study by Meagan Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., touting 3.2 million lives saved by the vaccines.

Legacy media latched onto Fitzpatrick’s and Hotez’s claims, widely repeating and amplifying them.

But according to all-cause mortality experts Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., and Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., Fitzpatrick used a “counterfactual theoretical calculation” that yielded incorrect assumptions about infection fatality rates and vaccine efficacy.

In their new paper, Rancourt and Hickey argue that counterfactual calculations like those used by Fitzpatrick and other researchers can lead to dangerous conclusions and shouldn’t be used to drive policy.

“False claims accepted by government officials and their advisers can have a disastrous effect on public health policy and society,” they said.

They also reassess the claims made in several studies that estimate the number of lives saved by COVID-19 vaccines, and challenge the validity of the studies’ underlying assumptions. [MORE]

New South Korean Study Concludes All COVID Shots (both mRNA and non-mRNA) Increase Cancer Risk

/

From [HERE] COVID-19 vaccines and boosters — both mRNA and non-mRNA — pose an increased risk of six types of cancer and a 27% higher risk of cancer overall, according to a recent South Korean study of over 8 million people.

Four South Korean researchers published the report last week as a letter in Biomarker Research, a Springer Nature journal.

According to the study, COVID-19 vaccines and boosters are associated with a higher risk of breast, colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancer, across all vaccine types and age groups.

Mainstream medical commentators were quick to dismiss the findings, with MedPageToday describing it as “flawed.” But other medical and scientific experts disagreed.

“In plain terms: both major COVID-19 vaccine platforms appear to be carcinogenic,” epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher wrote in a post on Substack.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a medical oncologist, told The Defender the study builds on other recent findings but “is the first to show that cDNA [non-mRNA] and mRNA vaccines are associated with cancer risk, suggesting that the spike protein is directly carcinogenic.”

Medical commentator John Campbell, Ph.D., said this week on his YouTube show that the research marks “the largest-scale study so far” examining the association between the COVID-19 shots and cancer.

 ‘No vaccine technology was free from cancer risk’

According to the study, while the carcinogenic potential of the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for COVID-19 “has been hypothetically proposed,” there has been little research on the potential cancer risk from COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers said the “shared structures” contained within the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccines, including the spike protein, might mean that the COVID-19 shots are associated with cancer risks.

The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups.

Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including:

  • Overall cancer: 27% higher risk

  • Breast cancer: 20% higher risk

  • Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk

  • Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk

  • Lung cancer: 53% higher risk

  • Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk

  • Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk

The statistical analysis of the results showed that there is a “1 in 1,000 chance that this result arose by chance,” Campbell said.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna showed a 20% higher overall risk of cancer and were most closely linked to a higher risk of breast, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancers.

Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, known as cDNA vaccines and which include the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) shots, were associated with a 47% higher overall risk of cancer. They were specifically linked to an increased risk of colorectal, gastric, lung, prostate and thyroid cancers.

Patients who received a mixture of mRNA and cDNA doses also faced an increased risk, with a 34% higher incidence of cancer overall and a close association with a higher risk of breast and thyroid cancers.

“The elevated cancer risks were not confined to one vaccine platform,” Hulscher wrote. “Each vaccine type was associated with a measurable increase in overall cancer — and each had specific cancer sites driving the signal. In other words, no vaccine technology was free of cancer risk in this dataset.”

Internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker said the data show that among vaccinated people, the cancer risk increases with time.

“The increased risk of cancer for vaccinated subjects rises in a linear fashion over the entire period of the study, at a steeper angle than the unvaccinated curve, and it does not flatten out. The increased incidence just keeps getting bigger. It could go on for decades. It’s truly alarming,” Baker said.

‘Every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks’

The results also showed vaccinated people under 65 years of age were at particular risk of some types of cancer.

“The relatively younger population (individuals under 65 years) was more vulnerable to thyroid and breast cancers; by comparison, the older population (75 years and older) was more susceptible to prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, vaccinated people under age 65 showed an overall increased risk of cancer, while elderly adults — particularly those over 75 — had the highest overall risk.

Vaccinated women also had a relatively higher risk of cancer than vaccinated men, with vaccinated women showing a particularly increased risk of colorectal and thyroid cancers, and vaccinated men showing a higher risk of gastric and lung cancers.

Hulscher wrote:

“Both the overall and site-specific results show a consistent pattern — every demographic group experienced elevated cancer risks, though the type and absolute burden varied. Women and the elderly were hit hardest, but no population segment was spared.”

The study’s results also showed that COVID-19 boosters resulted in a substantially higher risk of certain types of cancer. This included a 125% higher risk of pancreatic cancer and a 23% higher risk of gastric cancer.

Dalgleish called the numbers “striking,” saying the jump in risk after booster shots “is an unexpected increase that we are also seeing in the United Kingdom.”

Critics call one-year follow-up period ‘bonkers’

According to MedPageToday, the one-year follow-up period the researchers used in the study was “bonkers,” and the study didn’t take into account the patients’ family histories of cancer and their screening history.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at Children’s Health Defense, said “the criticism levied against the study is of healthy user bias.” He explained:

“The idea that people more likely to engage in one medical intervention (vaccination) are also more likely to engage in another (cancer screening) … is a valid concern for a vaxed-unvaxed study such as this one, as those seeking a vaccine will have drastically different healthcare-seeking behavior than those not seeking a vaccine.

 “[However,] this is not just a vaxed-unvaxed study — it also differentiates the vaccines. Healthy user bias is not a point of argument for why one vaccine (cDNA) shows a strong cancer risk above another (mRNA). Further, the study doesn’t say vaccines cause cancer, but are associated with them.

“We are complex multicellular organisms. Cancerous cells are created within us with great frequency, and are usually subdued by our anti-cancer mechanisms. … If a vaccine can disrupt that anti-cancer mechanism, then cancers can manifest in a short time window.”

Even if cDNA vaccines were shown to pose a higher cancer risk, Baker said the study also highlights the risk of mRNA technology.

“This study absolutely implicates the mRNA platform,” he said. “Remember, COVID-19 was the first widespread use of that technology platform in humans … In its first application, it increases cancers.”

Campbell said official South Korean data is typically reliable, and the study was well structured.

“South Korea was a very heavily vaccinated country,” he said. “There was … just a few hundred thousand in the unvaccinated group, but that’s good enough to get some pretty good data from.”

The study’s authors did not elaborate on possible mechanisms contained within the COVID-19 vaccinesthat might result in a higher cancer risk.

Baker said the “significantly increased hazard ratios for six different cancer types suggests to me a possible immune system impairment contributing to the increased risk. It’s frightening, because the risk is not limited to any one type of cancer that might be screened against.”

According to Campbell, the spike protein and DNA contaminants found in the mRNA vaccines may be among the factors contributing to this risk.

The authors suggested that more research is necessary “to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine-induced hyperinflammation.”

Growing number of studies link COVID shots to severe adverse events

Other recent large-scale studies and analyses suggest a link between the COVID-19 vaccines and serious adverse events such as cancer.

Earlier this year, an analysis of a Japanese database of 18 million people showed that people who received COVID-19 vaccines had a significantly higher risk of death in the first year after vaccination compared to the unvaccinated. The risk increased with each additional dose.

A study of 1.3 million women in the Czech Republic published in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine in June showed that the rate of successful conception — a pregnancy leading to live birth nine months later — for vaccinated women was “substantially lower” than for those who were unvaccinated.

A 30-month study of nearly 300,000 people in Italy, published in the journal EXCLI in July, found a 23% increased risk of cancer following one or two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, and an additional 9% increased risk among those who received three or more doses.

The Italian study’s results also showed statistically significant increases in breast, bladder and colorectal cancers.

Jablonowski said the Italian study’s findings largely mirror those of the South Korean study, as there is “a corroboration of evidence that cannot be ignored.”

“The comparison of the results … is awfully interesting,” Jablonowski said. “The two studies generally agree on many cancer types. One form of cancer that they do not agree on is prostate cancer. It is not remotely noteworthy in the Italian study, and the strongest signal in the Korean study.”[MORE]

Trump is All Talk About Protecting Human Freedom: The Blight House Misses Key Deadlines for Imposing Restrictions on Gain-of-Function Research

/

Biosafety hawks were initially optimistic that the incoming second Trump administration would at last place binding constraints on so-called "dangerous gain-of-function" research, in which pathogens are manipulated in laboratories to be more virulent or transmissible in humans.

The administration's picks for top health policy jobs—most notably National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—are both gain-of-function critics who have asserted that this type of research created SARS-COV-2 in Wuhan, China.

In May, the White House issued an executive order creating a broader definition for dangerous gain-of-function research and promising that new restrictions on it would be issued within a few months.

"The conduct of this research does not protect us from pandemics. There's always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out by accident even and cause a pandemic," said Bhattacharya at the Oval Office press conference when the order was signed. With the order, "the public can say 'no, don't take this risk.'"

But the deadlines for the new restrictions called for in that order have since come and gone without any new policy being released. Meanwhile, there are indications that the NIH is continuing to fund risky virological research.

Gain-of-function critics who were optimistic that this research would finally be put back in the box are now concerned that the Trump administration will fail to implement meaningful restrictions. [MORE]

Emails Show Fauci Told Colleagues to Delete COVID-Related Communications

/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called on Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify before the U.S. Congress after Paul released several emails from 2020 that show Fauci instructing colleagues to delete messages after reading them.

The email directives, which may violate federal law, contradict Fauci’s congressional testimony last year, when he repeatedly denied deleting official records or engaging in “attempts to obstruct the Freedom of Information Act and the release of public documents.”

Paul published the emails on Wednesday in a series of X posts.

He also posted a copy of a letter he sent to Fauci on Tuesday, asking Fauci to turn over documents and other records and to state his availability to testify before Congress this year.

The emails show that Fauci, who directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, asked colleagues on at least two occasions to delete messages, a possible violation of federal records laws.

The emails also disclose Fauci’s discussions with key public health figures about how to “get ahead of the science and the narrative” during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The emails exchanged ideas on how to promote the “zoonotic” — or natural origin — theory of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. [MORE]

Attorney Aaron Siri Told Senate Puppeticians that a Large Study Found Vaccinated Kids were Far More Likely to Develop Chronic Disease than Unvaccinated Kids, But Researchers Fear Releasing It

/

In a U.S. Senate hearing today, attorney Aaron Siri revealed the results of a large study that found vaccinated children were far more likely to develop chronic disease than unvaccinated kids.

The study never underwent peer review and was never published, because the authors — staunch vaccine supporters — told Siri they were concerned about losing their jobs or reputations because their findings contradicted the official public health narrative and vaccine policy.

Siri’s testimony, delivered during Tuesday’s Senate hearing, “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” addressed the study’s origins, findings and suppression.

The study involved over 18,000 children enrolled in Henry Ford Health system’s insurance plan in Michigan.

“The results are astonishing,” Siri told The Defender. “For example, vaccinated children had 4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease (a group of allergic conditions), 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5.53 times the rate of neurodevelopmental disorder.”

These findings were statistically significant — even when accounting for gender, race, birthweight, premature birth, and respiratory distress or trauma at birth.

But rather than publishing the results, the study authors and their bosses at Henry Ford Health refused to make them public — even though the lead author previously assured Siri and Del Bigtree he would publish the results, whatever the findings. [MORE]

‘It’s Not Science’: JAMA Study Claiming COVID Vaccines Saved Millions is Fundamentally Flawed

/

A report in JAMA Health Forum that estimates COVID-19 vaccines saved between 1.4 million and 4 million lives is false and based on flawed assumptions, according to a preprint paper published this week by Correlation, a Canadian nonprofit research organization.

All-cause mortality expert Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., argued in the preprint that the inputs used by Dr. John Ioannidis and his colleagues for their COVID-19 vaccine calculations were based on incorrect assumptions about infection fatality rates and vaccine efficacy.

The authors of the JAMA paper also didn’t account for harms from vaccines or compare their results to real-world data, Rancourt said.

Rancourt said his critique exposes the “mental game” used by the scientists to build a case for the COVID-19 vaccines’ lifesaving abilities. He said:

“The formula they’re applying is elegant and straightforward — anybody can understand it.

“But look at the components inside the formula. They’re based on nothing. They’re based on something that is nothing, that is based on something else that is nothing, and so on. This is nonsense. It’s not science. It’s just manipulation of concocted data.

“Here’s a smart man applying a formula, but the outcome is garbage. There is no reason to believe that any lives were saved.” [MORE]

Fiery FLA Surgeon General Ends All Vaccine Mandates: ‘The Authority to Impose Vaccines is Slavery. The Gov Doesn’t Have a Right to Tell You What to Put in Your Body. They Want to You to Believe That!'

/

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE FROM GOD, NOT GOVERNMENT. Karen Kingston wrote, “Comparing the government’s authority to impose vaccine mandates under threat of punishment to slavery, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo passionately declared,

"The Florida Department of Health in partnership with the Governor, is going to be working to end ALL vaccine mandates in Florida law. All of them. ALL of them! Every last one of them. Every last one of them. All of them. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.

Every last one is wrong and DRIPS with disdain and slavery! Who am I, as a Government or anyone else, to tell YOU what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your CHILD should put in their body? I don't have that right. Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and God."

"The Government Does Not Have That Right. They Want to You to Believe They Have That Right and unfortunately They’ve been successful. It’s wrong. It’s immoral They do not have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Do not give it to them. Take it away from them.”

Dr. Ladapo’s powerful reminder that the government does not have the authority to tell us what to put in our bodies or our children, because our human rights come from God, not from government, is so prescient today.” [MORE]

It’s interesting that the Surgeon General has claimed that all vaccine mandates, including ones involving legitimate vaccines that pass Constitutional muster, are immoral and wrong. In his speech, he appears to be discussing governmental authority in general, which is unheard of in retail politics, and a pleasant surprise.

To be clear, The Supreme Court has made it plain that “the principle of vaccination is to prevent the spread of disease and or provide immunity.” It instructed courts to balance an individual’s liberty interest with the government’s societal interest in preventing disease. The government’s interest of preventing societal disease will generally supersede an individual’s liberty rights with regard to a vaccine mandate. Nevertheless, government authorities and massa media have remixed the definition of “vaccine” to make it interchangeable in the public’s mind with “medical treatments,” which are just therapeutic remedies taken solely for the recipient’s benefit, a private health matter that doesn’t involve the general public. For instance, during the plandemic authorities and their media sold COVID injections as vaccines but they clearly were not. COVID shots absolutely do not prevent the spread of COVID or provide immunity to COVID. As such, COVID injections were simply individual medical treatments, not vaccines, and no different than taking an aspirin or other medicine to reduce the symptoms of illness. While the Court has made it plain that ‘a government has power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing a person from spreading disease to others, the government may not force medical treatment that is solely for the recipient’s benefit.’ Therefore, an individual has a constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, such as COVID “vaccines,” because they are not vaccines in that they fail to meet the legal standard for a vaccine. Thus, they could not be lawfully mandated.

Here however, Ladapo was talking about authority on another level – specifically, he condemned government authority to compel people to take even legitimate vaccines (BW is not stating that such vaccines actually exist). He stated that government authority to mandate vaccines is simply based on “our belief” that a government has the power to mandate vaccines. He said, “They Want to You to Believe They Have That Right [to mandate vaccines] and unfortunately They’ve been successful [in leading you to believe they have legitimate authority to do so]. It’s wrong. It’s immoral They do not have the right to tell you what to put in your body. Do not give it to them [your belief]. Take it away from them.” In other words, there is no actual, substantive or legitimate basis for governmental authority to impose vaccines in the first place. Ladapo stated that “no man or government can tell another person what to put in their body. Every last [mandate] is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery! Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your body and God."

Its axiomatic that all government power comes from the people. If no man has the power to impose a vaccine on another man then no man could possibly delegate his power to a government representative, such as a governor or president or a legislature, to impose a vaccine on others. People have no such individual power to grant their government representatives such power. Ladapo’s position is that due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for government authority to impose vaccines then vaccine mandates are slavery imposed by the government. Persons who disobey mandates will be punished however the government deems fit.

His position is far reaching and may be applied to all government authority. Where did the government acquire its power to compel people to do anything? As stated, allegedly governmental power comes from the people. That is, we delegate our individual power to the government for it to act on our behalf. However, it goes without saying that people cannot delegate powers or rights that they do not themselves possess. An agent or government representative can only be authorized to hold the power of the principal or the citizen. Naturally, an agent only can possess whatever powers the principal gave to her - so it is impossible for an agent/representative to possess more power than the principal/citizen. You can’t give something you don’t have.For instance, if you don’t have the right to initiate unprovoked acts of violence against other people then you cannot delegate or authorize anyone else acting on your behalf to do so. If you stopped, searched, detained and put your neighbor into handcuffs and locked him in a basement for failing to comply with one your commands eventually you would be convicted of several crimes. Does math change anything (majority rule)? Could a group of neighbors authorize their government representative to do something that they couldn’t do themselves? Could the group transfer powers it doesn’t have to the representative? No. The government’s power to forcibly control others didn’t come from individuals under the delegation doctrine or any natural, rational source. In the case of government, the government has somehow granted itself the power to do things that no individual citizen could ever do.

Importantly, when government authority engages in such activity it is exempt from law and morality and ‘its citizens’ are said to have a moral and legal obligation to obey all its orders and laws. This hypothesized moral property (authority) believed to be possessed by all governments is said to make government the supreme authority over human affairs.

The question of “authority” is the question of whether any government has the right to rule over or govern people in the first place. Said question is not a theoretical one. Authority is the basis and operating system for all governments throughout the world, regardless of type, function or characterization. If government authority is not legitimate, having no valid source and is a mere belief in our minds then it is slavery and all who are subject to it are slaves. As such, the inquiry is important to anyone who values freedom and life.

To be clear, political “authority” is the so-called governmental right to rule over people. It is the idea that some people have the moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have the moral, legal and content neutral obligation to obey.’ Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government. We are born into this involuntary arrangement.

Unfortunately, in addition to the delegation theory discussed above, all other theories that purport to account for the legitimacy of authority, have been thoroughly debunked. The following theories as laid out by Michael Huemer also fail to legitimize or provide a rational basis for authority:

SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY. The idea that there is a contract between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws and do so in exchange for citizens obedience and taxes. That is, individuals have contractually agreed to obey the government and must do so and the government is obliged to provide services and protection. However, if such an agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet we are bound to obey authority. Therefore, there is no contract and no social contract actually exists.

At any rate, the so called “public duty” doctrine renders the “social contract theory” meaningless. Decades ago the Supreme Court ruled that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police or fire protection, to any particular individual citizen. It means for instance that police have no legal duty to protect any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for its failure to protect citizens, as it has no legal obligation to do in reality. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties. [MORE] and[MORE].

Pursuant to the social contract, citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and authoritites and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it?” There is no contract between the individual and the state. It is device or trick to control the populace. 

IMPLICIT AGREEMENT. Under an implicit agreement to obey authority we are deemed from birth to have agreed to obey authority until we decline, opt out or reject it? This proposition is also an illusion because whether you reject or object to authority you must obey authority regardless. You have no real choice in the matter; you must obey authority, government services are mandatory. Like a plantation system, there is no way to opt out of the plantation and no way to avoid being a slave subject to another plantation owner.

AGREEMENT BY ACCEPTING BENEFITS. Perhaps authority is made legitimate when citizens agree to accept the benefits provided by government, such as public schools or police “service?” Government authority is not made legitimate through acceptance of benefits. Whether a person accepts the benefits of government or not, all persons are still subject to the laws and required to obey authority.

CONSENT BY PRESENCE. Does an individual consent to authority by simply remaining in a particular location - consent by presence on the land? In other words, in order to remain on your own land then you must pay a government and obey laws to do so. Said theory means that governments own all land and property everywhere government exists. According to such clogic, as stated by Michael Huemer, “Those seeking to avoid all governmental jurisdiction have three options: they may live in the ocean, move to Antarctica, or commit suicide.” Larken Rose explains, “To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the “country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent” theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need the consent of his slave.” 

It is also obviously circular thinking to say ‘the government has authority over everything and everybody because it has authority over everything and everybody’ - such a statement may indeed be the case but it cannot be a justification for the legitimacy of authority in the first place. [MORE]

CONSENT THRU PARTICIPATION. Does consent through participation with government or voting make government authority legitimate or valid? Not at all. “If you didn’t vote in the election, would you then not have to obey the laws made by whoever wins? Of course not. You will be subject to the same laws whether you vote or not and still must obey regardless of participation or non-participation [MORE]

MAGIC WORDS, CAPES & CEREMONIES. It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, special costumes to put on, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over other people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

As such, there appears to be no valid basis for authority. “Authority” does not come from people nor is it derived from any rational or natural source. Authority is merely a belief in the minds of people. Consequently it is only an implied right to rule over people.

In reality, authority is based on force and mind control. As stated by the Florida Surgeon General with regard to forced vaccinations, the authority to compel vaccinations under the threat of punishment is immoral and wrong. However, authority is immoral and evil in all human affairs - not just with mandates. Due to the fact that there is no legitimate basis for authority, then authority is slavery and all who are subject to authority (all of humanity) are slaves. As explained, there is no other kind of government in the world other than government based on authority. Thus, governmental rule is slavery. As stated by Dr. Blynd, ‘Despite all rationalizations by statists (people who believe in government), “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. ‘The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.’ FUNKTIONARY further states,  governments are transitory mental contrivances (repressive fictions) established by elites as a covenant (belief system) to live off the masses.

Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement. All government “Laws” in actuality are threats backed by the ability and willingness of authorities to use violence/force against those who disobey. Of course, an individual can choose not to comply with a law or an order, which will subsequently lead to another order/command or threat of a worse sanction, but in all governmental systems, at the end of the chain of orders comes a threat that the violator cannot defy. Michael Huemer states, “The system as a whole must be anchored by a nonvoluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices. That anchor is provided by physical force.” Huemer explains, “One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be detained. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it. Thus, the legal system is founded on intentional, harmful coercion.’ 

Once it is overstood that authority is only a belief in our minds, it is easy to see that ruling over other people by force and coercion is irrational and barbaric. [MORE]

It should be understood that slavery is not a concept of totality. As explained by Jeremy Locke, “Slavery exists wherever the freedom of man is destroyed. Theft and bullying are slavery. In history, many people throughout the world have experienced lifelong slavery. The ultimate slavery is murder. Slavery stops people from being able to make choices for their own lives. Everything that restricts your mind, your movements and your speech is evil. Slavery is found in both the partial and complete destruction of freedom.” FUNKTIONARY states, “citizens can come and go when they want and therefore have the illusion of true freedom—called “free-range slavery” - “like free-range cattle.”

As demonstrated, there is no valid justification for one man (or government) to have supreme authority over another. Although we all assume that there must be some valid explanation for why the government should be entitled to engage in behavior that would be deemed to violate individual rights and would be immoral or evil if performed by anyone other than the government, there is none. Trent Goodbaudy describes this is as a “statist delusion.” He states, “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.” Similarly, Dr. Ladapo said, in another context of course, Government wants you to believe they have authority, but don’t give it to them.’

Larken Rose explained,

The problem is not just that “authority” can be used for evil; the problem is that, at its most basic essence, it is evil. In everything it does, it defeats the free will of human being controlling them through coercion and fear. It supersedes and destroys moral consciences, replacing them with unthinking blind obedience. It cannot be used for good, any more than a bomb can be used to heal a body. It is always aggression, always the enemy of peace, always the enemy of justice. The moment it ceases to be an attacker, it ceases to fit the definition of “government.” It is, by its very nature, a murderer and a thief, the enemy of mankind, a poison to humanity. As dominator and controller, ruler and oppressor, it can be nothing else.

The alleged right to rule, in any degree and in any form, is the opposite of humanity. The initiation of violence is the opposite of harmonious coexistence. The desire for dominion is the opposite of love for mankind. Hiding the violence under layers of complex rituals and self-contradictory rationalizations, and labeling brute thuggery as virtue and compassion, does not change that fact. Claiming noble goals, saying that the violence is “the will of the people,” or that it is being committed “for the common good” or “for the children,” cannot change evil into good. “Legalizing” wrong does not make it right. One man forcibly subjugating another, no matter how it is described or how it is carried out, is uncivilized and immoral. The destruction it causes, the injustice it creates, the damage it does to every soul that it touches – perpetrators, victims, and spectators alike-cannot be undone by calling it “law,” or by claiming that it was necessary. Evil, by any name, is still evil.

It should also be understood that authority doesn’t exist for the sole sake of empowering government authorities. Authority functions on behalf of powerful elites who control the masses in a “domination hierarchy” through its use and other mental contrivances. Government authorities serve their masters who are the ruling class. Authority is the belief that enables the global “system of power supremacy.” Said system is controlled by  an elite class of intergenerational financiers and psychopathic human parasites. FUNKTIONARY explains this system continues the traditions of the kings (the divine rights) and the evolution from the first man to seek the power to control or use force over men and women for whatever reason.

FUNKTIONARY  explains, “The real threat to “authority” is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.” The question is, now that you know you are a slave, what are you going to do about it?