Much of the blame for this societal dissonance lies in the unhealthy alliance of our MSM (mainstream media composed of broadcast networks and major newspapers) and the Democrat Party. Since at least the 1990s the MSM have been operating as a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party as opposed to providing “truth to power”. The MSM are gradually losing the battle for relevance in the huge flourishing of, first, cable networks and now internet-based sites, podcasts and assorted social media, but they are still powerful in their waning days. They trashed Trump merrily during his Presidency, pushed Biden over the finish line in 2020, and have carried Biden’s water since then.

And since 2020 the MSM have been carrying more water for Biden than the Ganges in monsoon season. Biden’s deterioration has been evident for some years and it became an issue in the 2020 election. Brit Hume, one of journalism’s grey eminences, posed that Biden was senile based on his manner, behaviour and actions. MSM “fact-checkers” protected the precious candidate. But Biden and his handlers took notice that they had been rumbled and used the excuse of Covid from early 2020 on to hide Biden away campaigning from his basement. MSM ignored his concerning demeanor completely and supported him for President in words that would have embarrassed George Washington.

After a most unusual election came a most unusual Presidency, where the hiding away of the most powerful man in the world continued. Appearances were controlled, press conferences limited and interviews permitted only in controlled scripted environments such as with celebrities or on late night talk shows. Biden’s deteriorating physical condition, as well as his mental decline, were covered up by his handlers in a number of ways.

This year, two events began to poke serious holes in the view that Biden is just old. Last year a Special Counsel, Robert Hur, was appointed to conduct an investigation into the finding of classified documents at Biden’s residences. He reported his findings in January. The report was not kind to Biden to say the least. He stated that Biden should not be prosecuted for the documents because a jury would not find him guilty as they would be sympathetic to the fact he was a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”. NBC News dutifully provided covering fire for this by rolling out Democrat operatives to trash both Hur and the report.

Then there were the recent international events such as D-Day and the G7 meetings, where Biden was caught on camera spacing out and wandering off. The videos were shown on Fox News and went viral. The Associated Press stepped up for the covering fire and called them “cheap fakes”, following on from the White House reaction.  A bemused Fox News said the videos “have not been cropped, they have not been sped up or slowed down or edited in any way”.

And then came the debate. Biden had slipped in the polls against Trump due to the response from voters to seeing a candidate pursue the Kafka-esque strategy of putting an opponent on trial. And so Biden and his handlers came up with a cunning plan – to challenge Trump to a debate in an environment they believed they could control. They set the rules, selected the moderators (CNN, who had earlier supplied the questions in advance to Hillary Clinton in a 2016 debate), had no audience that would cause Biden to lose focus, and banned any cross-talk to limit Trump’s quick repartee. Biden spent seven days at Camp David prepping for the debate as if there was nothing else going on that required his attention. It was a brilliant strategy and only one thing could ruin it – the senility of the candidate. It did.

The reaction was immediate from folks believing in Biden. Democrats and Never-Trumpers were gob-smacked. But it is fascinating how their surprise was akin to reading the last few pages of an Agatha Christie novel. Massive surprise at the unveiling of the murderer is followed by an “oh yeah” as folks think back on the clues that were there all along. These reactions showed up in polls taken over the last few days. A CBS News poll two days after the debate showed 72% of folks now believe Biden’s cognitive issues prohibit him from being President, and this includes 42% of Democrat voters.

The immediate reactions of the MSM were different. At 10:30 that night the panicked howls of the MSNBC political pundits and “experts” mourned the death of their favoured campaign, while CNN threw ashes on the coffin. The New York Times suffered a dark night of the soul, and as the dawn broke published an editorial claiming Biden should step down. These are the guys who in March this year were taking a victory lap comparing Biden to Beethoven, Wagner and Martin Scorsese after Biden angrily shouted his way through a teleprompter speech to Congress.

The assorted Democrat Party apparatchiks and elected representatives were even more on fire. The donors did not like seeing their investment go down the drain. Many wanted their money back. Incumbent Democrats facing election in November were all over the place, with the mood varying from total support to calls to step down. In a Presidential election year Biden is at the top of the ticket and so has the capability of dragging these guys over the finish line, as party regulars tend to vote the entire line. Or not, as the case may be.

The White House gamely tried damage control, saying Biden was ill with a cold or suffering from jet lag after two back-to-back trips to Europe two weeks before the debate. The usually obedient White House Press Corps did not buy it.

No word as yet from White House doctor Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who gave Biden his annual physical this year and claimed he was “fit for duty“.

As for the Biden campaign, its response came four days later on Monday night when he addressed the nation on TV. The Supreme Court had issued a ruling on Presidential immunity when carrying out constitutional duties that essentially destroyed the strategy to tie Trump up in court for bogus charges. All Biden had to do was give a stirring speech on TV about the evil Supreme Court as a dramatic riposte to the debate nightmare. Unfortunately, Biden stank up the joint once again. His speech was only four minutes long, delivered in the trademark Biden mumble. He read both his speech and his instructions (“end of quote”) off the teleprompter. And it did not help that Biden’s face was painted with orange make-up in a vain effort to look as vibrant as his opponent.

This story is going to take a while to play out as the Democrat Party is on the horns of a dilemma. Biden is still planning on running and if he (or those around him) want him to, he will. His delegates (over 90%) have to vote for him on a first ballot at the Democratic Convention in August, which makes him the Democrat nominee. Only pressure from Democrats, anxious about a thrashing in November if he heads the ticket, can change this. But try that with a cranky, senile, elderly man. Also, the $100 million campaign war chest he has raised so far can only be transferred to his VP, Kamala Harris. And Democrats, apart from those who want the first POC woman as President, do not want her as she is, unbelievably, more unpopular than Biden with the public. Raising that kind of money and formulating a nationwide campaign is unrealistic with just four months left. Whatever strategy is followed, one thing is clear – the MSM will support whatever path is chosen by the Democrat Party.

Left out of all this is the state of the country. The focus at the moment is on Biden the candidate, but it is Biden as President for the next six months that is far more worrying. The MSM and Democrat Party, however, cannot waste too much time on something as trivial as the state of the nation. Not when there is an election to win.

It has largely been forgotten today, but, as I discovered when writing my new book Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets, the German Nazi Party of the 1930s and 40s believed in climate change too: it’s just that they thought the world was growing inexorably colder, not warmer. Also, unlike political elites today, they tended to think climate change was a good thing, not a bad one: coping with harsh frost and ice would help the Aryan race grow hard and strong amidst the growing frozen wastes of our future ice planet. That would certainly come in handy if they ever tried invading Russia during the winter again.

The actual ‘science’ [sic] behind the Nazis’ own version of climate change is completely different from that of our own day – but, strangely, the social and political effects of quasi-enforced mass public belief in the phenomenon were often eerily similar to the kinds of things we can see going on with our own alleged climate crisis today. Personally, I don’t necessarily dispute the basic idea our climate today is changing (it always has), merely the dubious political superstructure subsequently built atop this initial notion.

The Nazi iteration of the same basic scientific scam – in which Hitler himself was a strong public believer – was termed Welteislehre (WEL), or ‘World-Ice Theory’. Significantly, WEL was billed not simply as an ordinary scientific proposal but a full-blown Kosmotechnische Weltanschauung, or ‘Cosmo-Technical Worldview’ – a comprehensive method of viewing the natural world through a highly distorted ideological lens which merged pseudoscience, philosophy, archaeology, religion, mythology, politics and racism into one heady brew of ‘cosmic cultural history’ containing pure ‘vitamins of the soul’.

WEL was developed by an Austrian engineer-turned-prophet with a truly epic beard named Hanns Hörbiger (1860-1931), who stubbornly refused to accept the existence of stars. Instead, Hörbiger taught apparent stars such as those shining within our own “so-called Milky Way” were actually an optical illusion caused by light from a few genuine suns far away, reflecting off a gigantic wall of planet-sized ice-blocks ringing our entire solar-system like icebergs bobbing upon the ocean of space-time.

Where did these icebergs originate? Billions of years ago, in the Constellation of the Dove, there had been a gigantic super-sun, millions of times larger than our own, orbited by a similarly huge super-planet, layered with ice hundreds of miles thick. As its orbit decayed, this ice-world fell into the super-sun and melted, emitting jets of super-charged steam. The sun then exploded, vomiting forth colossal lumps of super-heated magma which cooled and set solid into the well-loved planets of our current solar-system today. Mars, little more than a giant blob of ice, would one day pass so close to Earth that it would hoover up our atmosphere, rendering it a lifeless orb of snow.

Being perfectly positioned between fire and ice, Earth was presently the only non-frozen world left, a Goldilocks planet. Originally, our solar system had about 30 planets, but the smaller ones had entered into the larger ones’ orbits, becoming frozen ice moons; Saturn’s rings were the shattered remains of one such lunar body. Eventually, all the planets’ orbits would decay until they spiraled into the Sun, making it detonate, and the whole fire versus ice cycle would begin anew.

Huge oxygen clouds were also expelled from the original solar explosion, reacting with etheric layers of latent hydrogen, creating entire oceans’ worth of space water which then froze into those system-ringing space-bergs within the universe’s icy vacuum. Occasionally, one such space-glacier comes loose, floating into our sun’s gravitational field, causing hailstorms on Earth before splashing into the sun, creating a sun-spot, said Hanns.

Meanwhile, our present moon – Earth’s sixth such satellite, apparently – is continually accumulating more and more frozen material on its surface, shed from these passing loose space-bergs, becoming so over-laden it will ultimately sink violently down to Earth. Other smaller ice-moons had hurtled Earthwards thousands of years ago, the last of which, the ‘Tertiary’ or ‘Cenozoic’ moon, had destroyed Atlantis, also causing the biblical Great Flood and Twilight of the Gods of ancient Norse myth. The ultra-high tides caused by the Tertiary moon’s approach and fall had shaped the world’s salt and coal deposits, and all previous theories explaining how such substances were formed were yet more university-born lies.

Hörbiger’s idea, as laid out in a rambling, unstructured 1913 book of some 790 pages, Glacial Cosmology, initially flopped badly, despite his enlistment of an amateur German moon-mapper, Philipp Fauth (1867-1941), as co-author to lace it with plausible-sounding technical language. Embittered, Hörbiger thought jealous non-WEL astronomers were engaged in an unpatriotic Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy against the poetic Austro-German soul, so in 1918, observing how citizens had been sold on the First World War via propaganda, the self-declared “German genius” (who, like Hitler, wasn’t even actually German) decided to use the fortune he had accumulated from a special type of valve he had patented from his old engineering days to appeal directly to scientifically illiterate members of the public instead. In short, rather than persuading people of the truth of his ideas logically, he sought to persuade them emotionally instead.

“What agrees with it is right, what cannot be united with it is wrong,” declared Hörbiger of his idea, like all good pseudoscientific ideologues. “Either you learn to believe in me, or I must treat you as an enemy,” he warned one sceptic who argued measurements of the lunar surface proved it far too warm to be covered in miles of ice. As such evidence was irrefutable, it was easier to ignore it and smear opponents as traitorous political adherents of Jewish Physics instead, instrumental data being mere “weapons directed against the spirit of Parsifal”, the legendary Wagnerian knight-hero.

“One Austrian, Hitler, drove out the Jewish politicians,” read one WEL propaganda leaflet. “Another Austrian, Hörbiger, will drive out the Jewish scientists.” Scientific opponents to WEL were now not just wrong – they were evil, just like climate change sceptics today supposedly are in the eyes of many of their more unhinged opponents.

Whilst not actually a paid-up Nazi himself, Hörbiger was a committed pan-German nationalist and exploited growing similar public sentiment to sell his theory via a constant deluge of books, pamphlets, magazines, movies, radio-shows and even a special newspaper, The Key to World Events, which dubiously interpreted recent major news stories as expressions of cosmic ice’s influence upon humanity. When Price Charles deludedly claimed the Syrian Civil War was the direct result of climate change today, he is unknowingly following in Hörbiger’s footsteps.

Over time, Hörbiger essentially formed his own political pressure group; he even had private street thugs, drawn from Nazi Brownshirt ranks, gaining a literal cult following. He didn’t call this private army Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil, but such adherents fulfilled a similar function of disrupting public life and persecuting dissenters, albeit in a much more violent fashion than has so far happened with their unknowing activist descendants today.

Cannily, Hörbiger courted Nazi politicians, seeing in them a path to future influence. Following his 1931 death, Hanns’s followers aggressively promoted Welteislehre to sympathetic elements in the SS, correctly seeing that, should the Nazis ever achieve power, as they ultimately did in 1933, they could enforce acceptance of the theory via dubious political means rather than via actual rational force of argument. Sound familiar?

Whether you were a WEL-believer soon became a proxy test for whether you were a good German or loyal fascist, with links drawn between the ‘healthy’ notion of cosmic ice and the equally ‘healthy’ Nazi line that the Aryan people had originated near the invigorating frozen wastes of the North Pole. “Our Nordic ancestors grew strong in ice and snow; belief in the WEL is consequently the natural heritage of Nordic Man,” it was said. World-Ice Theory was enlisted as just more scientific evidence the German Volk really were the cosmic Master-Race; white superiority was quite literally written in the ice-white stars (or space-bergs, if you preferred).

Hitler, smitten, planned to build a gigantic astronomy museum in Linz once he had won the war, the entire top-floor of which would be devoted to Hörbiger, “the Copernicus of the 20th century”, symbolising how he represented the final end-point of the whole science’s evolution, whilst the SS signed a document officially recognising WEL, the ‘Pyrmont Protocol’. SS meteorologist Hans Robert Scultetus tried using the idea for long-term weather-forecasts in his special Pflegestätte für Wetterkunde unit, albeit with little joy.

Just as you won’t get a top job on a ‘socially conscious’ company’s board today without ostentatiously agreeing humanity is about to die out due to the pernicious effects of capitalism-fuelled global-warming, so back in the 1930s it became impossible to gain employment from many German firms unless you agreed to sign a pledge acknowledging cosmic ice was real. After this caused some disquiet, the Nazis eventually gave official advice explaining WEL-belief was not legally necessary to participate in public life – it was just a major advantage.

The appeal of Welteislehre was therefore not based primarily upon outmoded concepts like logic, realism or evidence; instead, there was a politically and ideologically motivated desire for it to be true. In other words, like much of climate change hysteria today, it was purest political religion disguised as science.

It’s no wonder the history of the whole WEL debacle isn’t very well known today. If it was, then our very own contemporary climate change fanatics may have to admit to being in some very unsavoury company indeed. Maybe hectoring little Hitlers like George Monbiot and Greta Thunberg really are ‘Climate Nazis’, as some like to call them, after all?

Steven Tucker is a journalist with the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.

Here I’ll present evidence that the coronavirus appeared at some point in the second half of 2019 and was spreading globally during that autumn and winter.

There have been a number of studies that have gone back and tested stored samples for evidence of the coronavirus, either antibodies or viral RNA. One of the most intriguing is a study from Lombardy, northern Italy, by measles researchers who had spotted that Covid could cause a measles-like syndrome. They tested hundreds of stored samples taken during 2018-20 for both antibodies and viral RNA. They found 11 samples positive for viral RNA from August 2019 to February 2020, including one from September, five from October, one from November and two from December. Four of these were also positive for antibodies, including the earliest sample from September 12, 2019 (both IgG and IgM). Note that these samples were from ill people so estimates cannot be made from them of community prevalence. The positive samples were genetically sequenced to reveal mutation information, reducing the chances of them being false positives. None of the 100 samples from August 2018 to July 2019 showed strong evidence of infection, further validating the methods used and suggesting to the researchers that the virus emerged around July 2019.

A separate study in northern Italy tested wastewater from 2019 for viral RNA and found samples in Milan and Turin positive from December 18th, though negative prior to that, which is in contrast to the results of the first study. The samples were again genetically sequenced, adding to their reliability.

A Brazilian sewage study found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in samples from late November and December 2019, but not in two earlier samples from October and early November. The samples were taken from one site in the southern Brazilian city of Florianópolis and were genetically sequenced for confirmation.

An antibody study of archived Red Cross blood conducted by the US CDC found 39 antibody-positive serum samples collected December 13-16, 2019 in California, Washington and Oregon. Overall, 2 percent of blood samples collected from these states on these dates tested positive for antibodies. The full results can be viewed in the table below. A 2 percent antibody prevalence in mid-December suggests significant community spread across America during November 2019. However, there were no earlier samples for comparison and no testing or sequencing of viral RNA for confirmation.

A study of stored blood samples in France examined hundreds of routinely collected samples in a population cohort and found around 2 percent prevalence of antibodies in November, rising prevalence in December and around 5 percent prevalence in January. These figures do seem on the high side when compared to the above studies, and the lack of testing and sequencing of viral RNA and the absence of samples from earlier periods suggest this may be less reliable evidence.

Another Italian study tested blood samples from lung cancer screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and found 14 percent of those from September 2019 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. But again, this lacked testing and sequencing of viral RNA and negative controls from earlier periods. A Spanish study detected SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in a sample of wastewater from Barcelona on March 12, 2019; however, all the other historic samples up to January 2020 were negative and it is suspected that this is a false positive due to contamination or cross-reaction (the sample wasn’t sequenced).

What about early spread in China? It’s hard to get reliable data for this country. However, a leaked Chinese Government report found hospital patients (recognised retrospectively) admitted in Wuhan from November 17, 2019, suggesting the virus was spreading there during November and probably October.

A molecular clock study estimating the date at which the common ancestor of early viral samples was around put the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 as early as July, in China. A separate molecular clock study estimated the emergence between mid-October and mid-November in Hubei province, China.

So the evidence is clear that the virus was circulating both in China and internationally by November 2019 at the latest. We can also say with strong confidence that it was not circulating prior to July 2019, and it may not have been around before October 2019, depending on how reliable the European data from the early autumn are.

Some argue that all this evidence of early spread – despite coming from multiple sources and using robust validation methods such as sequencing – must be faulty in some way, as the lack of excess deaths prior to March 2020 makes it impossible for the virus to have been spreading widely over the autumn and winter.

My view is that this argument is insufficient to overcome the clear evidence of early spread. I don’t deny that there is something of a ‘mystery‘ that must be resolved, in that the wave of excess deaths did not begin until March 2020. Some sceptics resolve this ‘mystery’ by arguing that the virus must therefore be no more deadly than other similar viruses, and thus that any excess deaths since March 2020 must all have been caused by interventions such as lockdowns, faulty treatment protocols and vaccines. However, I agree with Dr. Pierre Kory that we have undeniable evidence of waves of severe pneumonia with a common clinical profile that began in March 2020 and that are best explained by the novel respiratory virus to which most of the deceased tested positive. While some of the excess deaths will be due to interventions, and some of the Covid deaths will be misclassified, the majority of additional deaths from a respiratory cause will be due to the virus. Professor John Ioannidis used antibody data to estimate that the infection fatality rate in the Americas and Europe in the first wave was around 0.3-0.4 percent (higher in hot spots), which is several-fold higher than flu, usually estimated at around 0.1 percent.

A good counterexample to the claim that all the excess deaths in the pandemic were caused by interventions and not the virus is South Dakota, which never imposed any interventions. Despite this laissez-faire approach it had a mild spring wave; yet then had a massive summer wave that resulted in greatly elevated deaths during the autumn. These deaths certainly can’t be put down to sudden panic: the state was so relaxed during its summer outbreak that it held a massive motorcycle rally.

So how to explain the lack of excess deaths during the autumn and winter of 2019-20? The most important point to be made is that while SARS-CoV-2 was clearly circulating during that winter, it does not appear to have been the dominant virus either in the community or in care homes and hospitals. Thus while, say, 2 percent of the population may have contracted the virus during the winter, because it was competing with other, milder viruses and wasn’t running rampant among the high-risk population, its impact was limited and it did not cause noticeable excess deaths.

The early-spread-sceptic’s objection to this point is that the virus is clearly highly infectious so if it was present and circulating it’s simply not possible for it to have remained at a low level and not run rampant in, say, care homes, causing havoc.

But is it really true that the virus always causes a large wave of infections and deaths whenever it is present, and as soon as it arrives? The evidence suggests not. Just look at how it failed to take off in many places in spring 2020, not just South Dakota as described above, but Japan, South Korea, Germany, Eastern Europe and large parts of the US. India notably wasn’t hit hard till Delta in 2021, and East Asia not until Omicron. In other words, the virus doesn’t always do what we’d expect, and in particular it doesn’t always have a deadly wave as soon as it is present.

To illustrate, here’s the picture in the US at the end of May 2020, after the initial wave. It’s a real patchwork, with clear concentrations of excess deaths around New York and around Michigan, Illinois and Indiana, plus Louisiana and one or two other states. Many other states had very few excess deaths during the spring. Yet we know the virus was circulating widely in every state.

Then, by the following winter, excess deaths were high almost everywhere, meaning specific local treatment protocols or policy responses cannot be credited either with causing the deaths or averting them.

In Europe, too, there was huge variation in the impact during the initial spring wave, even though the virus was circulating everywhere.

This wasn’t owing to policy responses, as shown by the very different outcomes the following winter.

In line with these inconsistent outcomes, numerous studies have shown that outcomes during the first wave weren’t explained by policy responses. But they also aren’t explained by whether or not the virus was circulating, as it was circulating everywhere.

The evidence is clear then, from multiple studies with robust validation methods including genetic sequencing of viral RNA, that the virus was circulating globally since November 2019 at the latest, with some evidence of its presence as far back as July, though not earlier than that.

The most likely reason that there was not an explosive, deadly outbreak prior to March 2020 (or even later in many places) is that the virus was still in competition with other winter viruses so was not dominant or running rampant in hospitals and care homes. The large outbreaks from spring onwards may have been assisted by the emergence of new, more infectious (and possibly more deadly) variants. A winter Covid prevalence of around 2 percent largely among the low risk could easily go unnoticed among the usual winter diseases without triggering noticeable surges in hospital admissions and deaths.

On this evidence it seems we can definitively rule out both an emergence before July 2019 (too many negatives and just one questionable positive) and after November 2019 (too many positives in a number of countries). The evidence is not currently consistent or robust enough to be able to pin it down more definitively than that.

There should, of course, be much more evidence on early spread. The World Health Organisation in June 2020 called for early spread to be properly investigated. However, very little has been done, and particularly in the United States, the various Government agencies have made no efforts to investigate early spread as part of their general neglect and squashing of all investigations into Covid origins.

Such silence and obfuscation only raises suspicions. And there is no shortage of reasons to be suspicious. The lack of genetic diversity in early samples, the high degree of adaption to humans from the outset, the absence of animal reservoirs and the presence of unique features that make the virus highly infectious among humans suggest that it was not natural but engineered, and thus either leaked from a lab or was released. Who was involved in the research that created the virus and the course of events that led to its getting into the human population is therefore a question of great importance that must continue to be pursued.

Article cross-posted from the Daily Sceptic via Brownstone Institute.

But here’s the real kicker. Out of 35 autopsies of people who died shortly after getting injected, only TEN could be ruled out as being caused by the jabs. That means that out of 35 autopsies in this published study, over 71% of the deaths could have been caused by the vaccines.

There have been dozens of studies over the last two years that have shown similar results, but this is the first that is coming from a “reputable” source that even Big Pharma shills in corporate media cannot disparage. It’s also the first that looks at this type of autopsy data on a scale that is statistically significant.

Without the ability to denounce or even falsely “debunk” the study, corporate media has chosen (or being instructed) to ignore the study completely. That’s not new, nor is it new to most of our readers that the jabs are being shown as extremely dangerous. What makes this particular bombshell special is that it comes at a time when many American “normies” are finally starting to ask the right questions.

They’re wondering if the jabs are really safe. They’re wondering if the medical powers-that-be like Anthony Fauci and even our own doctors were lying or just misinformed. Some are even starting to wonder if “conspiracy theorists” were right all along that the jabs are part of a depopulation and control initiative. This is why the article about the study below is so important to share. After two years of being gaslighted, ridiculed, and often times harmed directly, those of us who have been fighting for the truth to get out are finally starting to see some daylight.

By no means am I suggesting this is enough to change the hearts and minds of the masses. Since this won’t get play on CNN or Fox News, we’re still looking at an infinitesimal portion of the population that is waking up. But if we’re ever going to reach a tipping point of mass consciousness, we’ll need to take these small victories of scientific honest and amplify them as much as possible. Otherwise, all will be lost.

The article below by Will Jones at The Daily Skeptic was republished by the Brownstone Institute. All of the data checks out. All of the conclusions are sound, albeit perhaps a bit more muted than we’d like. That’s fine. Whatever it takes to get the truth ball rolling, we’ll take it.

Major New Autopsy Report Reveals Those Who Died Suddenly Were Likely Killed by the Covid “Vaccine”

A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after Covid vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine. A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.

The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.

In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of Covid vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.

For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:

All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.

This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease”, making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.

Dr. Schirmacher told me:

We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g. myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.

We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.

It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved – those in which there is no other plausible explanation.

It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated his team had concluded 30-40% of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.

Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in other autopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.

The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Other autopsies have confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)

What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be – and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, finding cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2%) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3%), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8% with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.

The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination” – notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.

The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the Covid vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.

Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.