The Cult of Vaccination

[Image: Vatican City Coin Depicting the Holy Sacrament of Vaccination. Thanks to John Leake for finding the image.]


Vaccination is considered by mainstream society to be a scientific practice, with no other motivations behind it other than those based in evidence. However, vaccination is not actually a scientific practice, but a cult practice, and this article will outline the reasons why vaccination can fundamentally be considered a cult.

I. The Promise of Salvation

All cults begin with the promise of salvation. The promise of salvation in the vaccination cult is the eradication of that we most fear: disease and death.

Death is humanity’s biggest fear, broadly speaking. It’s fair to say that this applies to most human beings, although there are exceptions to this rule. Disease and illness is also another large fear, that we will become ill and will be unable to care for ourselves and our families.

Vaccination offers to remove all our fears and doubts about death and disease. It offers what I would call the ‘Fantastical Conquest of Disease Narrative’, as a means to eliminate this fear. This narrative goes something like this:

In the time period Before Vaccination, people were constantly dying of disease. There were deadly outbreaks of diseases like smallpox which killed millions. Then Edward Jenner invented to concept of inoculation via cowpox, and soon the Smallpox Vaccine would come to save millions of lives. As the Industrial Revolution progressed, and science developed more and more, more and more life saving vaccines were developed. Because of this, disease plummeted. Vaccination is the reason that we have a good quality of life today and don’t have to worry about our children dying from measles, etc. Now, After Vaccination, we have our salvation.

II. The Receipt of the Salvation Ritual

However, in order to gain salvation, one must submit oneself or one’s children to the receipt of the Baptism of the Injection.

The receipt of the injection is a cult ritual. It is a sacred act. One is prepared for the receipt of the injection by the doctor, the modern day priest. The clean sterile environment, free of danger, germs, serves like the stained glass of old – to induce reverence, and as a reminder of what bounty one (or one’s child) will receive for undergoing the pain of the needle – a sterile, germ free body. Like the priest, the doctor reassures, soothes, it will all be over soon like an awkward session of confession. It is to save one’s body like confession is to save one’s soul. Sleeves are rolled up, skin prepared, pricked, plungers pushed. Maybe the child cries: he does not understand this is to save him. The doctor puts a plaster on it. There, all done, all over, the ritual is completed. There are lollipops, see, to soothe the pain.

To inject one’s children with vaccines is to induct them into the cult of vaccination, and this is the societal function of paediatric medicine. The whole function of institutions such as baby check ups is to establish compliance with the cult rituals of vaccination and ensure all doubt is removed from the parents’ mind. The indoctrination of the broader society into the narrative that vaccination is always good, via the media and government, is pervasive, but there may still be some parents who have questions. Perhaps something broke through to them on a social media platform, perhaps they heard another parent talk about suspected vaccine injury in their child. Doubts cannot be allowed to fester, they must be smoothed over with the concrete of authority to fill in the cracks. You see, the doctor knows best.

The Covid-19 Narrative has allowed for even adults to themselves confess their faith in Vaccination via the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ products. Prior to Covid, adult vaccinations were not all that important – even the flu shot, which is pushed to an extent, did not reach the sanctity of the childhood vaccination schedule. With Covid, adult vaccinations became fundamental. An adult must not only confirm their faith by injection of these products into their children, but receive them personally. And so many followed suit! Not only did they receive the holy ritual of vaccination, they openly expressed their reconfirmation of faith in vaccines on social media. How many selfies with ‘I’ve Had My Covid-19 Vaccine’ did you see? How many images of a masked, presumably smiling face, with a white-coat hovering over them pushing a plunger? The constant receipt of Covid ‘boosters’ – indicating the failure of the initial series, else why would ‘boosters’ be required – also serves as a reconfirmation of faith.

III. The Gospel of Vaccination

The vaccine program is jihad for atheists.

Toby Rogers

Vaccination also gives meaning to people’s lives. No doubt the quote above is an exaggeration – I’m sure there are atheists who question vaccination – it nevertheless makes an excellent point. The decline of traditional religion has meant that people do not have meaning in their lives, and even more so with the mass modern atomisation of traditional communities. Preaching the Gospel of Vaccination – like so many scientists, bureaucrats and general do-gooders do – provides a helpful alternative to create that meaning.

In general, those that are opposed to vaccination are seen in a negative light – and there are two categories of such people: The Hate Figure (more on hate figures below) and the Ignorant (who concern us here). The Ignorant are seen as needing education from the white-coat about vaccination, as being too stupid to understand, and they just need to accept the offer of salvation from the white-coat. In the Western internet age these people are often seen as dupes of evil, malicious hate figures – i.e. the main spokespeople of the anti-vaccination movement, who in a tremendous example of projection are only out for money.

There is also a large aspect of a White Saviour Complex to this narrative, with ‘ignorant’ Africans needing to be educated by white Westerners about vaccines, so that they can be ‘saved’ by the receipt of the injection. Any institutions that stand in the way of the delivery of more vaccinations in any African country – such as on occasion the Catholic Church – are demonised regardless of the truth of their claims or legitimacy of their questions about vaccination.

Any questions about vaccination are dismissed as ‘reactionary’, ‘right-wing’, ‘anti-science’ – these simply stand in the way of ‘progress’, progress defined as shiny tip of a needle.

IV. The Apostate as Hate Figure

One of the most notable features of a cult is that it cannot tolerate dissent, and must silence any critique. One method how this is done is the creation of a hate figure – a person who represents what the cult does not.

When it comes to the vaccination cult the most notable hate figure is Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The Official Narrative, repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media, is that Wakefield is a disgraced, immoral fraud. The endless repetition of this narrative provides a hate figure for believers in the vaccine cult to pour their wrath upon. Like the Two Minutes Hate in 1984, this hatred reinforces the belief in the narrative. But the hate figure can also act as a balm for the reason why vaccination has not achieved its salvation promise of elimination of disease and death. We see this whenever there is an outbreak of measles or mumps anywhere. Because of Wakefield’s criticism of the MMR vaccine, he gets the blame. There was an outbreak ‘because disgraced British doctor Andrew Wakefield convinced parents with his lies not to vaccinate with the very safe MMR vaccine’, not because of any problems with the concept of vaccination or the vaccine program. The truth is irrelevant, the target is set, and any questioning of the cult is cut off.

And of course the most obvious reason for the creation of a hate figure is to inculcate fear – to make someone questioning the cult think twice about leaving, lest they be demonised and lose their career and income. This serves to keep any other doctor in line who might think about questioning vaccines. Fundamentally, Dr. Wakefield fits the role of cult apostate: he (and prior to him, members of his family) trained in the mainstream medical system – one of the pillars of which is the worship of vaccination. Thus his trial before the General Medical Council and by media, and his eventual striking from the medical register, should be seen through the lens of excommunication.


The four aspects outlined above serve as the basis for the establishment and maintenance of the vaccine cult in society.

15-Minute Tyranny: The Government’s Plans for Oxford (and Everywhere Else)

[All photography in this article was taken at the anti-15-minute city protest in Oxford on the 18th February 2023].

One of the latest schemes coming out of the UK government is the 15-minute city, with Oxford one of the first cities lined up to implement this scheme, supposedly a new form of urban planning that makes every amenity available within 15 minutes of a resident’s house, so they do not have to drive. The establishment claim regarding these 15-minute cities is that they are perfectly benign and just a way to reduce traffic and protect the environment. The establishment also claims that anyone who opposes this plan is a ‘far-right conspiracy theorist’.

Liberal establishment outlet The Guardian, states:

The anti-vaccine, pro-Brexit, climate-denying, 15-minute-phobe, Great Reset axis is a strong one.

Of course, none of those positions is inherently right wing.

A report from the Oxford Mail outlines the plans for Oxford below:

ROAD blocks stopping most motorists from driving through Oxford city centre will divide the city into six “15 minute” neighbourhoods, a county council travel chief has said. The new traffic filters on St Cross Road, Thames Street, Hythe Bridge Street and St Clements would operate seven days a week from 7am to 7pm. Two more filters on Marston Ferry Road and Hollow Way would operate from Monday to Saturday. People can drive freely around their own neighbourhood and can apply for a permit to drive through the filters, and into other neighbourhoods, for up to 100 days per year. This equates to an average of two days per week.

Let’s start with addressing the pro-15-minute city arguments and their inherent problems.

The first claim is that people are opposing things being easily accessible within a 15-minute radius because they are just unhinged and like cars for the sake of it. The reality is no-one is opposing things being locally available per se. What is being opposed is making it much more restrictive for people to travel around the city and the need for ‘permits’ and the potential for that authoritarianism to increase over time.

The second claim is that all people opposed to 15-minute cities are ‘climate change deniers’. Some reject the theory of anthropomorphic global warming, that is correct. However, I don’t think that can be said as a blanket statement of all 15-minute city opponents. The other problem is that the MSM always conflates rejection of the climate change theory with denial of environmental harm in general. These are two separate issues.

I am sceptical of the Official Climate Change Narrative because I am sceptical of every Official Narrative at this point. However it’s obvious that the kind of lifestyle we have has lots of negative effects on the environment. This is the kind of lifestyle that the establishment wants, however, which makes their pleas that this is ‘just to protect the environment’ ring rather hollow. For example, the establishment supports endless wars, one of the most destructive environmental forces on the planet. They used exfoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam and depleted uranium in Iraq. They sprayed glyphosate all over the world and mocked anyone who suggested that this might have a negative environmental impact. They polluted the entire planet with aluminium despite the vast deleterious effects on wildlife. They encourage the use of pharmaceutical drugs regardless of necessity which can have a negative impact when they are urinated out of the human body and get into the water. They encourage endless consumerism of pointless tat. And of course there is a large amount of hypocrisy involved as the establishment does not want to give up their own cars or private jets.

As a result I don’t trust any government proposals to protect the environment.

So what are 15-minute cities about if they are not about the environment?

In short, authoritarian control.

15-minute cities may seem innocuous to some and it may seem as if the restrictions put in place on travel are not very extreme. However, we have to view this in the context of this scheme being promoted by the same governments that put the entire population under house arrest for two years. This is the context being ignored by those who support the 15-minute city schemes. Having put us under house arrest previously, they cannot be trusted to not do the same thing again, this time by stealth and slow totalitarianism, given that more lockdowns have probably become politically untenable.

Once you understand the desire for ‘digital identity’, as is currently being promoted by such establishment figures as Tony Blair, and the desire for ‘Smart Cities’, as promoted by the World Economic Forum, the desire to set up zoning within cities makes perfect sense. The zones will probably be implemented without too much coercion – initially. But soon – it will be considered ‘more convenient’ for the zones to be linked to digital identity checkpoints, which will form part of the ‘Internet of Things’ beloved by the transhumanist-promoting WEF. This will physically prevent travel outside of the ‘zone’ via computer as the digital systems will simply refuse to let one through the checkpoint. This digital identity can store all sorts of information, not just about ‘carbon footprints’ but also about ‘vaccination’ status and other purported information that they may wish to use to block your access to areas outside of your ‘zone’.

It is here we see the real potential of the 15-minute city and why the establishment has an interest in promoting it. They may dress it up in fluffy terms like ‘protecting the environment’ but what it means is an ever more intrusive surveillance state. This is the goal of these psychopaths.

A Response to Dr. Clare Craig On Paediatric Vaccination

Logo for The Real Left, who organised the conference discussed below.


I attended the conference ‘The Left Case Against the World Economic Forum’ on the 25th March in London. While I am not going to do an expansive write-up on the conference, I was drawn to respond to a comment made by Dr. Clare Craig in the Q&A portion of the panel regarding paediatric vaccines, as I have some quite significant issues with it.

The Context

Dr. Clare Craig gave a talk on the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare (I’m not going to address that topic, transcript here for those that have an interest). An audience member (not me) asked her a question in the Q&A panel regarding traditional vaccines, stating that he read ‘Dissolving Illusions’ and that vaccines don’t have the effectiveness record that is claimed. Craig’s response to this question was that, paraphrasing, she has deliberately not got into the debate around other vaccines because we need to win people over on the issue of the Covid ‘vaccines’ first. Unfortunately there is no transcript/video of the q & a session available, so I am using memory and my instinct of what was said at the time and what went through my mind, after she said this. I did make notes on the day and the day after of what points I wanted to make in response, so hopefully this should be accurate.

I have several issues with this statement which I will outline below.

Loyalty to Truth

The first issue I have with this is the idea of loyalty to truth. The implications of this comment seem to be that we should put the question of truth of paediatric vaccine effectiveness to one side in order to prioritise the strategy of winning people over to the dangers of the covid jab. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this is a good strategy for a moment. If someone genuinely believes that paediatric vaccines do more good than harm, that is an honest position, if false (many people honestly believe this because of the relentless vaccine propaganda, though of course their unwillingness to question that propaganda is open to criticism). But to state that we should stay away from the issue, even if we are willing to question the claims around traditional vaccines intellectually, seems to me a like a dishonest position.

Is This a Good Strategy?

I also question whether this will be an effective strategy to win people over. Firstly, to a large extent, the battle over the Covid ‘vaccine’ is won, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Why?

As of March 21, 2023, only 16.4% of Americans were current with their updated (bivalent) booster dose, CDC data shows.


This number is very important. It demonstrates that even people who bought into the Covid scam and willingly got ‘vaccinated’ are not taking the bivalent boosters, and only a small hard core of Covid fanatics are still lining up for more doses. This is the same in lots of different countries, with doses administered flatlining in countries like Israel.

The question that logically follows is: why? If it is so ‘safe and effective’ why aren’t people still taking it? Again, these are the people who believed the CDC and trusted them on Covid, but when the CDC tells them to get the latest booster, they aren’t doing it. Because implicitly, even if they cannot admit it to themselves, they are subconsciously aware that this is a dangerous product. Of course, some are aware, having suffered consequences directly or indirectly from the ‘vaccine’ and have linked their and/or their family and friends’ misfortunes to the shot.

This makes it the perfect time to push back, strategically, and fight to destroy the vaccine cult as a whole. Millions of minds have been opened by the Covid jab debacle – and they would be willing to consider arguments about vaccination as a whole. There are already lots more parents stating they won’t vaccinate, or that they are considering not vaccinating, or they regret vaccinating. There’s also a smaller number of people who were injured by paediatric vaccinations who are speaking out but unfortunately this number remains very small for now (of course, those who were killed or severely injured by paediatric vaccinations cannot speak out). Now of course, if we do this they will smear us as ‘antivaxxer cranks’ or whatever, but the reality is, they are going to do that anyway. Even the mildest Covid ‘vaccine’ critics are called antivax by the establishment, so in this regard, it’s irrelevant whether we’re actually antivax or not in their eyes.

The only strategic reason to not push back against the whole vaccine paradigm at this point is because one wants to save it. Some people critical of the mRNAs fall into this category, like Alex Berenson. I don’t know whether Dr. Craig ultimately wants to save it or not, as she didn’t explicitly answer that question. But not addressing paediatric vaccine harms has that effect.

The Harm of Paediatric Vaccination Injuries

Dr. Craig did not say that paediatric vaccination injuries are not real, in fact she engaged with someone in the audience whose sister had been injured by the Smallpox vaccine. She also mentioned the Pandemrix vaccine which was famously pulled for causing narcolepsy. So to be clear I am not accusing her of stating that paediatric vaccination injury cannot happen. The question from the audience member was more framed around the issue of vaccine effectiveness (such as vaccination not deserving credit for wiping out diseases) and not vaccine injury (such as the vaccines cause autism debate). This was the sort of point the questioner was trying to make:

As such, I understand that Dr. Craig did not frame her answer in reference to paediatric vaccination injuries, but nevertheless, the topic cannot be avoided. If we assume that paediatric vaccination injuries, including severe injury and death, are real, than avoiding this topic helps to allow the injury to continue, regardless of intent. The reality of the autism epidemic is continuing to get worse, for example. As I said above, more than ever there are some people who are willing to listen on childhood vaccines (even if some will never listen). There might be parents who decide not to vaccinate their child with paediatric vaccines because they initially began questioning the mRNA/adenovirus vector products and saw people who spoke about about the mRNA/adenovirus vector also speaking out on childhood vaccines. This has the potential to save children from these horrific injuries.

I have tried to avoid an emotional response to the question also, but I do think we need to think through the implications from a perspective of someone who has childhood vaccine injuries. The strategic logic of only focusing on Covid ‘vaccination’ implies that people who have vaccination injuries from paediatric vaccines shouldn’t really be considered in the debate or that if we speak out we should be put to one side for strategic reasons. While this isn’t directly stated it is implied by the logic that we should focus only on the Covid ‘vaccines’.


I must fundamentally disagree with Dr. Clare Craig when she states that we should focus on getting the public on board with opposition to the covid ‘vaccine’ and avoid questions around the effectiveness of other vaccines. Instead I advocate opening up a debate around all vaccines, because, having come to come to the conclusion that the vaccine paradigm is entirely fraudulent that’s the only place I can be, on this topic.

How To Make A Changeling Child

Photo by Ivan Siarbolin on

The changeling child is always blamed on the fairies, the trolls, the supernatural. The pretty, wide-eyed, fussed over child becomes the monstrous covered in caul and sprawled in the cot. To take the sacred and replace it with the profane, to take the loved and replace it with the feared, to take the beatific and replace it with the demonic.

So goes the story.

Let’s talk about the reality.

Photo by cottonbro studio on

The changeling child was conjured – not by the hands of the fairies – but by the hands of the white coat, not by the messy beyond but by the sterilised room. It was not created by the ritual and mythology of the troll, representatives of the uncontrollable, but the ritual and mythology of the needle – the controlled, precise mechanics of modern science. And it was not created by the supernatural but by the unnatural, not man’s inability to control the beyond but man’s hubris that he can tame the wild – bend it to his whims and syringes. Instead of the haphazard, the unknown, the temperamental swap, we have the conveyor belt of changeling children – an assembly line of those that scream.

In the uncontrollable world, parents warned of the changeling child. In the sterile world, the changeling child is unspeakable. Those who point to its existence are simply told not to be so superstitious. After all, there can be no such things as changelings.

The Problem With Autism Acceptance Week

This week is ‘Autism Acceptance Week’, and this is being promoted all over Twitter. Despite not following any irritating autism promotion, neurodiversity, etc accounts, such as the National Autistic Society (who I can’t stick for a number of reasons), I have been seeing ‘Autism Acceptance’ tweets all over the platform. So it seems Elon Musk, despite unbanning some good accounts, is helping to promote the normalisation and glamorisation of autism via ‘Autism Acceptance Week’.

The premise of autism acceptance week is very simple: it is that autism is a natural human variation and actually there’s nothing wrong with it, the only problem is society doesn’t accept it. As readers of this page will probably know by now the author has an autism diagnosis. It’s always very funny to me that woke people in general will say ‘listen to autistic people’ as part of promoting the neurodiversity narrative but the moment I say that I believe it’s vaccine-injury and that it’s miserable they try to shut me up (not going to happen). Or they accuse me of not being autistic, despite the fact I have a diagnosis so I am an actual genuine gold star autist. Honestly I got my diagnosis a year ago and the best thing about it is being able to tell the wokie dope neurodiversity fuckers that I have one so I am a real autist and I still think that they talk shit. But I digress.

Let’s start by looking at some of the examples of autism promotion on Twitter on the #AutismAcceptanceWeek hashtag on Twitter that serve as examples of autism glamorisation.

Response: How can severely ill children & adults with seizures, non verbal and with severe gastroenterological symptoms be ‘ambitious and creative’?

Response: I picked this one as I find it interesting that they appropriated the ‘Authentic Self’ language from transgenderism. And if transgenderism is created by big pharma (it is) what does that say about autism?

Response: I don’t even know how to respond to this, other than to say the Greeks and the Romans did a lot of medical shit, where’s their descriptions of regressive autism? If it’s perfectly normal, I’m sure some upper class Greek or Roman would have had it happen to their child at some point.

Response: I can’t even respond to this except by throwing things. Do I even need to explain how this is grossly offensive to those of us suffering?

Response: There seems to an aversion to talking about those people who have to live in care homes because their autism is so bad. For some reason. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit the narrative?

And finally, someone accused me of not being autistic because I disagree with their glamourisation narrative, which is the only argument these people actually have. I then got blocked. If I wasn’t autistic I’d probably be skipping in the fields blissfully unaware of all this neurodiversity nonsense, because it wouldn’t affect my life. And I probably wouldn’t be arguing on Twitter because I would have things like an actual sex life. So there you go.

Here’s the screenshot from my notifications for posterity:

(Twitter brings out the worst in me. I swear.)

Now for the serious bit. Neurodiversity is extremely easy to debunk. Everyone agrees that severe anxiety, sensory issues and gastroenterological symptoms are a bad thing. Yet when you put the label ‘autism’ on those things, they are magically good? Blatant nonsense. Some neurodiversity promoters (who are not always autistic themselves, by the way) like to talk about the ‘special talents’ of autistic people, or what I call the ‘autistic savant’ trope. Some of the neurodiversity brigade then object to this and claim that autistic people aren’t actually savants.

But the whole concept of neurodiversity is based upon the ‘autistic savant’ trope, whether they admit it or not. In order to make the case that autism is actually a good thing, you need to be able to point to something objective that makes autism actually good. As I said, you can’t point to, say, gastroenterological symptoms and try to glamourise those, because everyone would (rightly) think you were insane. So you have to pick something else. Which means the only fall back is the autistic savant trope – that autistic people have some sort of unique intelligence due to their special interests.

Claiming neurodiversity is good on this basis is also a catastrophic failure, of course. The most obvious reason it is a failure is it ignores the vast majority of autistic people, 78% of whom don’t work, many of whom are non-verbal in care homes because their autism is so severe. These people’s suffering is never mentioned by the neurodiversity activists. They clearly are not contributing to humanity with their special talents. When you have to erase 80% of a thing to make the other 20% of a thing look good, you are clearly off to a non starter.

But even in the case of high-functioning autism, this argument is nonsense, because absolutely everything an autistic person has done in their lives would be easier if they didn’t have autism. For example, if an autistic person lucks out and gets offered a job, it would have been much easier to get a job without autism. Even something as simple as holding eye contact in a job interview has to be forced and managed if you are autistic whereas a normal person would do it automatically. And that is very simple, straightforward, and easy to understand example. If I had to explain how many times sensory issues and anxiety have prevented me from doing things that I could have achieved, or destroyed my enjoyment of things, we would be here all day.

Unfortunately, for psychological reasons, the ‘neurodiversity’ narrative is appealing to some people with autism. This is because it allows them to psychologically compensate for what they cannot have because of autism (healthy sexual relationships, for example, or peace of mind due to horrific anxiety and sensory issues) by flipping the script and claiming that their autism actually gives them a deeper understanding of the world or makes them special.

Non-autistic people often promote it on the level of ‘be kind’, or naively believe it’s just about ‘diversity’. In some cases, they have been misled by propaganda, and believe in the ‘autistic savant’ trope. This is why stuff like The Big Bang Theory is so destructive as it portrays this very narrow view of autism as being ‘savant with a PhD who is maybe just a bit weird and has problems getting laid, and oh by the way is extremely witty and cutting’. (I have a pet conspiracy theory that TBBT is actually some form of big pharma propaganda.)

Or perhaps, people believe that autistic people may as well believe neurodiversity than see the truth of how bad we have it. They don’t believe our lives are actually good, and there is no way in hell they would be us, but they will let us blather on about how special we are and nod along because they think it may ease our psychological burdens. Clayton Atreus, a paraplegic who later committed suicide, highlights this phenomena.

You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned the vaccine-autism link in this argument. That’s because everything above does not require the vaccine-autism link. Autism could be 100% genetic, and neurodiversity would still be nonsense.

Here’s the antivaxxer bit.

We need some antivaxxer counter propaganda, to oppose this godawful narrative that is glamourising the horrors of autism. I propose ‘Autism is Unacceptable Week’, where we highlight the facts that the neurodiversity brigade want you to ignore.

For example:

Book Review Commentaries: ‘Proud’, Edited by Juno Dawson

I found this young adult book in a charity shop:

I decided to buy it out of curiousity because I like punishing myself. The possibility of doing a review of the themes in the book was in my mind when I purchased it, doing a kind of ‘The Lies They Tell’ thing (who does a good job attending these bizarre transgender Zoom/in person events and discussing them – check out her blog if you are interested in that kind of thing).

I am only going to comment on the introduction and on a couple of the stories in here. Some of them are actually just about homosexuality/bisexuality so we’re not going to do those, we are only going to comment a couple of the stories with transgender themes.


The introduction is written by young adult author Juno Dawson.

If you’re not aware, Juno Dawson is a trans-identified male who claimed that gay men just want to be women:

A lot of gay men are gay men as a consolation prize, because they couldn’t be women.

Juno Dawson

Why someone who makes such homophobic statements is editing a book about ‘pride’, of course, is rather odd.

Dawson claims that he had gender dysphoria at a young age, which as he is a gay man, could be true as this is true of many gay men who ‘transition’ (‘homosexual transsexuals’ in Blanchard’s terminology). That said, his claim to ‘continually’ be asking his parents when he would become a girl seems like retconning as his parents don’t seem to recall that, his mother bringing to mind only one instance:

They had assumed I was gay before I told them, whereas they didn’t expect this at all. Although, once my mum had dealt with the shock, she did say she probably should have seen it coming after I’d asked her, aged three, ‘Am I a girl?’


Dawson was subjected to homophobic bullying at school, I don’t know if this played into his obvious self-hatred as a gay man. It seems that Dawson is very interested in dating ‘straight’ men, so perhaps ‘transition’ is a mixture of self-hatred and sexual strategy for him:

But I couldn’t stop the “what if” thoughts. “If I was a girl I could do this, or go out with him.” 


The man he married also claims to be only interested in women.

Other than that there isn’t a lot else to say about it. He does, however, compare the media’s coverage of AIDS with the media criticising sterilising children at the Tavistock. What do you even do with that?

The Other Team

The first story I wanted to comment on was ‘The Other Team’ about the topical issue of ‘trans people in sport’ i.e. men dominating in women’s events such as Lia Thomas.

This story attempts to address this whole debate, but in such a way that makes it seem as if the whole issue is non threatening to women. Rather than making the story about a trans-identified male on the women’s sports teams, the story is instead about a trans-identified female playing on a men’s football [soccer] team. The story is also written by a trans-identified female, I am not sure if she identifies as a ‘gay man’ or not, although the main character of the story does.

Of course, as women are smaller and less athletic than men, this framing diffuses the entire aspect of threat to women (for example, that women playing rugby against men is inherently unsafe due to the high risk of injury). Men don’t face the same physical threat from women.

The plot of this short story goes as follows. A trans-identified female joins a male (gay and bisexual) football team that are a bit useless. One of the men on that team is an over the top caricature of an effeminate gay man. The TIF used to play on the women’s football team but after ‘coming out as trans’ joined the men’s team. It’s casually mentioned that she plays football in a binder, as if this is no big deal, and not, you know, unsafe.

The gay/bi football team with added TIF goes on a road trip to go and play at another team’s ground. Camp gay guy camps it up on the team bus. TIF calls herself ‘gay as hell’ because she is attracted to men.

The team of gay and bisexual men plus TIF arrives at the ground of other football team. Our resident TIF usually has a different place to change from the men, and she worries she won’t have a separate place to change at the other team’s club. Interesting as to why a female doesn’t want to change with the men. Reality being of course that women were forced to see Lia Thomas’ cock in the changing rooms.

Anyway, Big Mean Transphobic Coach says that the game can’t go ahead, because the TIF is, well, a TIF. Big Mean Transphobic Coach states that it’s ‘against league rules’ for women to play in the men’s team (which makes perfect sense). And then we get the climax of the story, aka The Great Misgendering. The Big Mean Transphobic Coach says that the other (actually male) players can play, but that she can’t, referring to our TIF.

The gay and bisexual men in question of course all jump in and defend our TIF by calling her he. They agree to play a friendly fixture but they lose because they are a bit useless. That’s pretty much it.

The Courage of Dragons

The way this story is written, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I’m pretty sure it’s about some they/them identified people but that’s about it. They are all obsessed with Dungeons and Dragons and talk weird so I don’t know if they are meant to be autists or something (note to author: I’m not obsessed with Dungeons and Dragons).

Anyway our male they/them doesn’t want to go for a wee because transphobia, or something, and it is ‘or something’ because nothing really happens except a mean comment that doesn’t even appear to be made in a bathroom.

So the they/them then gets their parents to complain to the school and Evil Transphobic Principal. Wokie Dope parents suggest that they make the bathrooms all genders because woke. They complain about being offered the accommodation of using the staff toilets. Principal points out that not everything is about a they/them identified student and that other students need boundaries. They/Them understands the implication immediately, i.e. that girls don’t want boys peeing in the bathroom with them, but obviously thinks his own identity is more important.

They/Them’s name is then put down across both columns of Prom King and Queen and this makes They/Them very upset. Seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. They/Them seems more upset about this than I was about being shoved in the dirt on the way home from school and having to go to hospital to check for concussion because I banged my head. Anyway, because of this he eggs the principal’s car because this is Canis Canem Edit or something.

The solution to this problem is to sabotage the entire school’s gender system and delete everyone’s gender. Wait, isn’t this pretty transphobic? Trans women work so hard to be recognised as real women and now you are going to delete their identity? And then stick all gender signs everywhere, but then how are people going to get the ‘validation’ of going in the women’s/men’s bathroom? And of course the media turns up and thinks that the whole thing is great. This is the only believable part of the whole story as of course the media loves a bit of wokery.


The book is now going back to the charity shop.

As a more substantive comment, it’s worth noting how these two stories contradict each other, and represent – as Exulansic puts it – different branches of the Church of Trans. The Other Team throws some sops to Biological Reality and Common Sense, i.e. by recognising that women don’t want to occupy changing rooms with men. Whereas The Courage of Dragons wants to dispense with biology entirely as well as even any notion of a binary (even binary trans-identification). The conflict between the ‘We just want to fit in as the opposite sex’ Blaire White-style transgenderism and the ‘We want to destroy the binary’ non-binary argument is one of the reasons that the demands of this ideology are so incoherent.

Conspiracy Theorists Redux

Last year, I wrote a piece on ‘Complicity Theorists’ parodying the generic articles that the media puts out criticising conspiracy theorists. This article is the same sort of thing, except we are going to break down an article (with humour) rather than write a satirical essay. So let’s have a look on the ADL article on Conspiracy Theorists and see if we can’t have some fun with it:

Conspiracy Theories and How to Help Family and Friends Who Believe Them

Why assume we want your help?

Do you have someone in your life who has been drawn in by a conspiracy theory? Has their behavior changed and you’re not sure how you can help?

I was an obsessive weird loner before I became a ‘conspiracy theorist’, so yeah, don’t think I became one just because I watched too many videos from The Last American Vagabond and read too much Substack.

Perhaps your parents have ventured down the QAnon rabbit hole and have become obsessed with trying to decode social media posts by public figures. They send you a daily stream of articles and YouTube videos about how the government is controlled by pedophiles who are running a child sex trafficking ring, and they’re especially worried about the daycare center your kids attend.

I mean QAnon is a BS FBI psyop (no politician is gonna save you and that includes Donald ‘Warp Speed’ Trump), but has this person not heard of Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Savile, etc.?

When your family all got the Covid-19 vaccine, your mom warned you that the government implants chips in the vaccine to monitor people. Since your parents haven’t gotten the vaccine themselves because of this belief, you don’t visit them very often. 

Sounds like the asshole in this scenario is the normie who doesn’t want to see his/her parents because they are not ‘vaccinated’.

Even though he doesn’t have children in the local school, your friend attends school board meetings because he is tired of “diversity” being taught to young children.

It’s not ‘diversity’ that’s the issue, people just don’t want sexualised drag queens performing in front of their kids.

You notice this friend has switched jobs every few months because he’s always getting into arguments with customers and his co-workers.

Ah yes all ‘conspiracy theorists’ argue about their politics at work.

Conspiracy theories can be defined in a variety of ways. In general, they reject established and accepted narratives, implying that sinister and powerful forces are manipulating various events and situations behind the scenes, usually for political gain. 

Rejecting established narratives? Such as ‘Iraq has WMDs’, ‘Incubator Babies’ ‘Assad gassed his own people at Douma’, ‘Gulf of Tonkin’, those official narratives? How dare people think the people who pushed those narratives might be liars! How dare people question if, uh, Mike ‘We Lied We Cheated We Stole’ Pompeo is telling the truth?

As for ‘manipulation’ do people really believe that elites DON’T manipulate shit? ‘I can believe that so-and-so at work manipulates shit for petty office politics reasons, but that the most powerful people on the planet do this for their own political/economic gain, well, that’s beyond the pale.’

Conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, and often emerge from a need to make sense of the world around us. 

No they emerge from the fact that official narratives don’t make fucking sense. Like the Skripals. Their own timeline that THEY put out THEMSELVES is nonsensical. We’re supposed to believe that Putin, allegedly the most competent 6d chess master on the planet, sent two cavorting assassins to Salisbury to smear the most deadly nerve agent on the planet on a doorknob and then hung around outside an antique shop rather than get the hell out of dodge. Just weeks before Russia was due to host the World Cup to promote itself on the world stage. I mean who could question this except someone who’s criminally insane?

Why do people get drawn into conspiracy theories?

Epistemic: This motivation is a need for knowledge, information and certainty. When a major event happens, people want an explanation for it and most importantly, they want to feel certain of that explanation. When people feel uncertain in specific situations or generally feel uncertain, they are drawn into conspiracy theories to help provide that certainty.

If they want ‘an explanation they can feel certain of’ surely they’d just believe the establishment narrative as those allow no criticism. Heck there is enough people who peddle the establishment’s crap who fall into that category.

Another key factor is people’s educational backgrounds; they may lack the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate between credible and non-credible sources of information. As a result, they are looking for knowledge and certainty but do not have the tools and understanding to look in the right places.

Yeah those thick plebs don’t understand that the BBC and Reuters are supposed to be ‘trusted sources’ and you need to believe them without question, damn you!

Existential: This motivation drives the need for people to feel safe and secure in their world. People need to feel they have power over the things that happen to them and, conversely, they don’t like to feel out of control or powerless in their lives. Conspiracy theories help them believe that they have information that explains why they lack control in specific situations and more generally. Therefore, people who feel powerless tend to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.

The correct interpretation here: “People who have been screwed over by the establishment are more likely to consider perspectives that criticise the establishment.” Which is bleedingly obvious.

On an individual level, believing you have access to information and the truth, while others do not have that knowledge, gives one a feeling of superiority over others that can feed self-esteem.

Then why do ‘conspiracy theorists’ bash our heads against the wall trying to get normal people to see that, I dunno, the mRNA ‘vaccines’ are poison if all we want is for special knowledge to make us unique?

There are real reasons for people to distrust governments, corporations and other powerful figures and groups. Actual conspiracies and cover-ups occur quite regularly; Watergate, the Tuskegee experiments and COINTELPRO were all real events. However, while real conspiracies do exist, this doesn’t mean that every event or situation is the result of a nefarious plot or that powerful figures are always trying to hide the truth.

So conspiracies happened 50 years ago but don’t question if they are going on NOW you conspiracy theorist!

The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, published by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Bristol in the UK, and Dr. John Cook, a professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, outlines seven traits of conspiratorial thinking, summarized with the acronym CONSPIR:

Contradictory ideas: People who have bought into conspiracy theories can simultaneously believe in ideas that contradict each other. For example, some believe that Covid-19 is a U.S.-created bioweapon but also that the virus is a hoax and doesn’t actually exist.

No, those are two separate theories that exist among those who question the Official Covid-19 Narrative. No one literally believes both. Someone might be willing to entertain both but that isn’t the same thing. Someone might say ‘On the balance of evidence I think 70% chance it is a lab virus, 30% it doesn’t exist’, that’s not the same thing either. In fact the ‘it came out of a lab’ people and the ‘no virus’ people will often argue with each other.

Overriding suspicion: Conspiracy theorists will dismiss “official” sources and any information that doesn’t “fit” neatly into the theory. They promote the idea that “traditional” sources of information–such as mainstream news outlets and academic researchers–are unreliable and are even “in on” the conspiracy, attempting to distract people from the truth.

Yes because official sources are full of fucking liars, see ‘Iraq has WMD’s’.

Journalists may sincerely believe establishment narratives, but they simply would not be hired if they did not, so mainstream media simply selects for the most dumb people on the planet who have a posh accent and sound like they know what they are talking about. Journalists are largely ‘useful idiots’ and aren’t important enough to be ‘in on the conspiracy’ a lot of the time (Dan Rather’s statement on Zapruder would be an example where the journalist was ‘in on the conspiracy’).

Nefarious intent: The people and groups behind these supposed conspiracies are always presumed to have nefarious intentions – their motivations are never benign.

Funny how all of their so called ‘mistakes’ have disastrous consequences for humanity though. I mean the guys that did Iraq then decided to go after Syria. You’d think if it was benign they’d have learned their lesson to not destroy countries?

Something must be wrong: Even if you can debunk a conspiracy theory, believers will still believe the theory because they fundamentally believe that “something must be wrong.” For conspiracy theorists, nothing is as it seems.

That’s because you probably haven’t ‘debunked’ it.

Persecuted victim: Conspiracy theorists believe that they are victims of the conspiracy. They also view themselves as heroes who are brave enough to stand up against the conspirators. If a fact-checker debunks a claim made by a conspiracy theorist, they’re seen as simply trying to discredit the believer and cast doubt on the truth.

Yeah because that’s the function of establishment funded fact checks.

I don’t think I’m important enough to be a ‘hero’, that’s generally the guys who go around talking about how they ‘destroy antivaxxers’ on Twitter, or whatever. Like that Ian Copeland guy.

Immune to evidence: Conspiracy theories cherry-pick “evidence,” selectively choosing bits of information that support the narrative and casting aside anything that contradicts the claim. Evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory will be re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy.

And the MSM doesn’t do this? No one is able to match up every single piece of evidence to a theory to 100% perfection (because reality is too complicated for this to be achievable), every theory has to emphasise or deemphasise certain facts. It’s about the theory that is most plausible. And conspiracy is the most plausible explanation in many cases (e.g. JFK assassination to take an obvious example).

Re-interpreting randomness: Conspiracy theories encourage believers to “do their own research” and collect their own “evidence” to prove the claim, looking for ways in which various events, people and situations are related. Events that have nothing to do with the conspiracy theory will be re-interpreted as being caused by the conspiracy.

As opposed to the establishment who tell you to uncritically believe everything out of their mouths. I know who I’m going with.

We can all fall for conspiracy theories and unintentionally aid their spread. That’s why it’s crucial for all of us to learn how to spot them. Here are some suggestions:

Check the source of the information. Additional red flags are raised when articles contain lots of grammatical errors, lack sources or are all written by the same author, or if a website contains an unusual URL or lacks an “About Us” section.

So if I get some guest authors I’m trustworthy then?

Check multiple sources. Are other, credible news outlets and experts sharing the same information? If a story is real, many publications will cover it. Have fact-checking sites like Snopes and PolitiFact refuted the claims?

Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Kory, Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Bhakti, Dr. Vanden Bossche, etc, are all criticising mRNA jabs but they are all cranks according to you, despite the fact they are obviously credentialed experts. What you actually mean is if your ‘approved experts’ say something.

Evaluate photos and videos that accompany stories and social media posts. Conspiracy theorists will often use old and/or manipulated images to support their stance. Conduct a reverse image search on Google or TinEye to see if the image has shown up elsewhere and if it has been manipulated. If it has, there’s a good chance you’re being played.

Like all that footage and video the MSM claimed was from ‘Ukraine’ that actually had nothing to do with ‘Ukraine’?

What you can do (and not do) to help those who have fallen for conspiracy theories?

However, once a person has bought into a conspiracy theory, it can be difficult to help them see that the conspiracy theory is wrong, a lie and that it could lead to harm and danger.

“Once people have seen the evidence, it’s hard to stop making them see the evidence.” Well, no shit.

Learn more about the conspiracy theories: What are their central claims and where did they come from? This information puts you in a better position to understand what the person says and does.

Only make sure you read from ‘approved’ sources though, wouldn’t want to become a ‘conspiracy theorist’ yourself!

Don’t try to convince the person they are wrong, lying or ignorant. Many people think if they just send that person enough information to refute their claims, the person will change their mind. This denies the underlying need the person has to believe it and is unlikely to work. In fact, those who try to discourage a conspiracy theorist are often seen as being “in” on the conspiracy.

We don’t think you’re ‘in on the conspiracy’. We know you’re not that important.

Encourage the person to use critical thinking. You can do this by asking open-ended questions with genuine curiosity about what they believe and why. You can also encourage them to read different points of view on the topic.

Have you ever considered that we used to believe the establishment claims and then we learned more and then we rejected them?

Don’t come across as dismissive, judgmental or belittling.

If it becomes difficult to be around someone who has been drawn into a conspiracy theory, take a break. While you may take space away from the person, don’t close the door completely or cut them off. More than ever, they will need their loved ones when they stop believing the conspiracy theories.

Oh no, being around someone with different beliefs is just too hard, what am I going to do, BBC, SAVE ME!

Establishment Imprison Autistic Man and Force Him to Have Covid-19 ‘Vaccine’

I don’t usually put out short commentaries/news type posts as I generally like to keep the blog as a place for long posts or protest coverage. However in this case, this news story is so worthy of note, and I have seen very little on it out there so far, and I am so angry about it, that I am making an exception.

The media today in the United Kingdom have just reported the below story, headlined:

Autistic son, 32, of anti-vaxxers who was one of the children in disgraced Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine study 25 years ago is ordered to have Covid jab by court in Jersey

The article goes on to say:

The 32-year-old, who can’t be named for legal reasons, spent lockdown in his room at a care home because his parents refused to let him be vaccinated, Jersey’s Royal Court heard.

To translate this from mainstream media bullshit to English, the care home locked him in his room because his parents did not want him to be harmed by a ‘vaccine’. When he had already been harmed by vaccines. His parents should have had him removed from the care home, if possible, although some of these care homes have put obstacles in the way of getting people out and I don’t know if that’s the case here.

Jersey’s Royal Court granted the vaccination order, saying that it was ‘the right best interests decision’ for B who had been in ‘groundhog day’.

In other words, this man is stuck because the care home won’t let him out because he’s not jabbed so they want to force him to be jabbed. When they could get rid of the problem by simply not treating him as subhuman for not being jabbed.

This also involves denying him treatments, according to the Times:

He is not able to attend the treatments, such as hydrotherapy, which soothe him, or the ones that cheer him, such as watching the Christmas lights being turned on, stuck in what his nurse describes as a “shrunken world”.

These people make me sick.

Night Carnival for Assange

The Julian Assange case is currently sitting where the establishment wants, that is, where literally nothing is happening. The purpose of the persecution of Julian Assange is not so much to convict him of anything, but to keep him in prison as an example to everyone else not to reveal the government’s malfeasance.

The Don’t Extradite Assange campaign has taken the wise decision to organise events outside of the court calendar. The previous event – outside/around Parliament on the 8th October 2022 – showed that the Assange movement is able to attract more supporters than throughout the period of 2020 and 2021, where the only people who turned up outside court were mostly hard-core supporters.

At first it did not look as if there was going to be a large turnout. Just before 4pm there were not a massive amount of people there.

It did grow to become a reasonably sized march.

There were some people with great costumes.

It took quite a while for the march to actually start, probably because they were waiting for it to get darker for the full effect. The event had hand made lanterns with ‘Free Assange’ messages for people to carry.

When it did get started, it went through well known areas of London like Strand through to in front of Parliament.

In terms of optics, I would give this protest 10/10. A lot of people paid attention to it, it got more attention from passers by than any other protest I have been to whether it was an Assange event or another issue. It’s a bad quality image but this can be seen below on the right:

Footage is available on my Odysee channel.

Exploring Deaths from Kilkenny, Ireland


A dataset of deaths and sudden deaths provided by Patrick E. Walsh from Kilkenny, Ireland has been under-utilised by researchers investigating the surge in sudden death. However, this is a very useful dataset for researchers to examine to demonstrate a significant rise in all-cause mortality, as well as deaths classified as ‘sudden’ in a small region of Ireland. I have written this article to draw more attention to this dataset, as I have personally not seen it reported among the staples of statistical analysis in the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ sceptic space.

What is the Kilkenny Dataset?

Recently, in response to British Parliamentarian Andrew Bridgen (who has recently become a fierce critic of the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ in Parliament, demanding that the jabs be stopped) twitter user @_Richard_JG posted an extremely valuable article from Kilkenny, Ireland.

(The source for the 89.9% ‘vaccination’ rate in Kilkenny is here. As an aside, that makes it a relatively low ‘vaccine’ uptake in comparison with other counties in Ireland!)

The article itself states:

A CONCERNED local man has emailed a group of what he terms ‘people who hold positions of influence and trust in Kilkenny’, bringing to their attention what he describes as important facts on deaths in Kilkenny, particularly sudden deaths.

Patrick Walsh has gone through the RIP.IE obituaries, to find both deaths and deaths which he classifies as ‘sudden’. He determined a sudden death by the criteria below:

Any explicit accidents or suicides are not included in ‘Suddenlys’.‘Suddenlys’ are identified by narrative or in condolences.

A similar thing that we would do when identifying sudden deaths for the In Memoriam project for Mark Crispin Miller, essentially.

The Total Death Data

This follow up article contains data from Kilkenny for 6 months of the year, July to December, and compares 2018 to 2022. I have produced some graphs showing this data below.

The below chart shows the deaths by month for 2019-2022. (I excluded 2018 so the graph didn’t get too messy).

Here is the same data, in a different format, with each month rather than each year:

Here is the total deaths for the 6 month period, plotted on a chart, 2018-2022:

The Sudden Death Data

Here are the equivalent data for the sudden deaths only, as defined above.

The same data by month:

Graph Plot:

What’s Valuable About This Data?

The fact that all the obituaries are publicly posted on RIP.IE and can be searched by any individuals who are willing to do so. The critics of this kind of approach may say the data is fabricated, but this is very unlikely given that anyone can check it. For example, I checked the number of deaths for December 2022 and got the same amount as Walsh (128). As for sudden deaths, there are 11 obituaries that use the term ‘suddenly’ or ‘unexpectedly’, and several more that use the term ‘after a short/brief illness’ which can also sometimes be a code for ‘vaccine’ death. So 3 more cases from these or from comments left on the obituaries (which I did not check) means the 14 number given is reasonable, possibly slightly conservative.

This data is also good as it isn’t subject to too many biases. The deaths classified as sudden are done so in the obituaries themselves or condolences, which means they are not subject to the bias of the ‘vaccine’ sceptic who may possibly be over-eager (or be accused of being over-eager) to blame deaths on the ‘vaccine’. And it would be impossible to game obituary notices, after all, someone is either deceased or not. It is also valuable as it has a control group of ‘non-sudden deaths’ for comparison, that allows us to figure out if there is a comparative increase in death classified as ‘sudden’.

Breaking Down the Data

The graphs above clearly demonstrate that for 2022, both deaths and sudden deaths are showing a significant increase. Although there is a spike in death for November and December 2022, it is not possible to conclude from this that the number of deaths will continue to increase as this could be a seasonal spike.

I calculated the percentages of deaths for each month classified as sudden, and plotted them on a graph, seen below. As the sample size for each month is not that large (lowest = 55, highest = 128), caution is advised on that basis. Nevertheless, we see in increase in the percentage of deaths classified as sudden in 2022:

This is despite the fact that overall deaths also increased in 2022!

What is most striking about this data is there is no evidence of an increase in sudden deaths in 2021. This supports the integrity of the research itself, as anyone simply looking to manufacture data to vilify the ‘vaccine’ would start their ‘sudden death’ counting in mid-2021. This suggests that while some young and healthy people are dying immediately from the ‘vaccine’ (not shown by this data, but it is present in other datasets), significantly more relatively young and healthy people are ‘dying suddenly’ a long time after initial ‘vaccination’ (either because a booster tips the ‘vaccine’ damage calculus to fatal, or because of damage sustained by previous ‘vaccination’ doses does not immediately result in death).

That the sudden death problem is increasing is supported by evidence from the Mark Crispin Miller reports, as well as statistical analysis from sources such as Igor Chudov, who reports that the correlation between excess deaths and ‘vaccination’ rates is strengthening:

The linear regression above shows that the vaccination rate explains 49% of excess mortality and that the relationship is highly statistically significant (P < 0.0001 is extremely significant).

What is worse, compared to a similar analysis two months before, the relationship has gotten STRONGER in terms of explanatory power (R squared), as well as steepness of the slope.

Igor Chudov (Chudov’s graph above).

This can be plausibly explained by at least three mechanisms. The first of these is the ‘subclinical myocarditis theory‘ put forward by Dr. Peter McCullough. McCullough argues that the spike proteins that are produced after an mRNA shot damage the heart in ways that may not be immediately obvious (e.g. the individual does not experience typical symptoms like chest pain). The heart damage in the presence of adrenaline (when playing sport, or when waking up) then tips the individual over the edge into cardiac arrest and sudden death. The second of these is ‘turbo cancer’, where the immune system’s ability to fight cancer is compromised, leading to rapid diagnosis of stage 4 cancer and death. The third mechanism is Ig4 immune tolerance to spike protein, which causes sudden death as it allows the spike to run rampant in the body, and the immune system does not fight the disease when exposed to Sars-Cov-2. This leads to a mild illness followed by sudden death.

How does this fit in with data showing a large number of deaths for 2021 from the ‘vaccine’, for example, VAERS? There are more overall deaths in 2021 than 2019, those deaths were simply no more likely to be classified as ‘sudden’. It’s likely some of this excess is ‘vaccine’ induced (as demonstrated by other sources), it is just not considered ‘sudden’ by the obituary writers. There may be multiple reasons for this, perhaps middle-aged and older people died more often early on from the ‘vaccine’ and their deaths were not considered ‘sudden’, while young people weathered initial ‘vaccine’ damage better, only to ‘die suddenly’ in 2022. Perhaps it is the booster – rather than dose one and two – that is the critical trigger for sudden death in a large number of cases, with the late 2021/early 2022 booster campaign proving the fatal factor.


Data from obituary analysis from Kilkenny, Ireland, shows a significant increase in sudden death for 2022 as opposed to previous years. This supports other sources of data that we have a significant sudden death problem in heavily ‘vaccinated’ countries. Patrick Walsh deserves credit for compiling this dataset for Kilkenny that provides yet another arrow in the bow of the ‘vaccine’ sceptic.