The Dark Side of Polio Vaccine Testing

Introduction

Polio vaccines are hailed as a heroic development in medicine and science. However, there is a dark side that is less acknowledged, at least in the media accounts of the polio vaccine. This is the abuse of disabled people – specifically disabled children in institutions – by vaccine testers.

How the Sausage was Made

Most polio vaccine development took place using monkeys. Jonas Salk, who created the inactivated polio vaccines, used rhesus monkeys imported from India extensively. In fact, this import of monkeys was a minor industry. This testing had involved infecting multiple monkeys with the virus, particularly when Salk had been involved in attempting to discover the amount of different strains of poliovirus. It also involved extraction of the monkey kidney tissue, in order to create a cell culture to grow the virus to create the vaccine. It was required to keep killing monkeys to gather this tissue because immortal cell lines, such as the HeLa line (an immoral exercise in lack of informed consent and medical racism in itself) had not yet been created when the polio vaccine was being developed. This cell line would only come to be used in a limited way during the testing phase.

However, Salk and other vaccine testers needed to move their vaccine testing from primates to humans, before the full scale testing that would take place among the general child population. For this exercise, they selected children in institutions as the first target for human vaccine testing. As quoted in the article Between Simians and Cell Lines:

The transition from experiments with imported non-human primates to trials with ‘normal’ American children was conceptually bridged via the testing of institutionalised disabled humans deemed non-normal.

Let’s take a closer look at the three main vaccine developers at this time, Jonas Salk, Albert Sabin, and Hilary Koprowski, and how they used disabled children in their vaccine experiments.

Jonas Salk

Jonas Salk, while testing his inactivated polio vaccine, carried out two rounds of testing on disabled children. He carried out work at the D T Watson Home for Crippled Children and the Polk State School. This testing took place in 1952, prior to the main testing of the Salk vaccine in 1954:

At Polk, Salk first inoculated children who were already polio victims with a vaccine derived from the same virus type present in their blood to assess their immune response. Following this, he vaccinated other children who had not previously contracted polio and who lacked protective antibodies.

There is no even hypothetical benefit to these children if they had already had polio.

Albert Sabin

Albert Sabin, in contrast to Salk, developed a live attenuated virus polio vaccine. When he wanted to test his vaccine, he applied to carry out an experiment at the Willowbrook institution. Willowbrook was a home for disabled children notorious for abuse and other unethical experiments, primarily hepatitis experiments. It was exposed in the 1970s by investigative journalist Geraldo Rivera.

However Sabin’s application to test his vaccine there was refused, and he turned to prisoners to test his vaccine instead.

Hilary Koprowski

Hilary Koprowski is the least well-known of the three main polio vaccine developers in the 1950s. This is because his vaccine was not adopted. However, it was extensively used in some parts of Africa, particularly the then Belgian Congo around Leopoldville (modern Kinshasa).

Koprowski, like Sabin, believed only a live vaccine would be effective against polio. He thus worked on creating attenuated strains of the poliovirus.

In 1950, he gave the first live polio vaccine to a human being at Letchworth – a home for people with intellectual disabilities. In the articles published about the vaccine testing, the children given the vaccine were referred to as ‘volunteers’. One of these children had to be fed the vaccine via a stomach tube.

While working on further attenuated viral strains, he created his most notable polio vaccine strain, known as CHAT. He created this vaccine strain by attenuation the virus in various cell lines. However, he then used the disabled children at Sonoma institution to create the vaccine strain itself, by passing the attenuated vaccine strain via four children and extracting the virus from fecal matter. He called the vaccine CHAT, according to him, because it was a truncation of Charleton, who was the last child used in the creation of the strain.

He conducted further trials at Sonoma in 1955, including those to see whether his attenuated vaccine strains would spread to non- vaccinees. As stated on page 221 of Edward Hooper’s book, The River:

In the course of these he and Tom Norton, assisted by a phalanx of nurses, had conducted two contact experiments, in one of which a group of six children who had been fed SM [one of Koprowski’s strains] and who were excreting virus in their stools were kept “in very intimate contact” with another eight children who lacked Type 1 antibodies. In practice, this meant that for the next twenty days the children (all of whom were incontinent) were allowed to play together for three hours a day on a plastic mat, which, although it was washed down to prevent its becoming grossly soiled, was deliberately not disinfected. In the course of the experiment, three of the unvaccinated children became infected with Type 1 virus.

Conclusion

Disabled children in institutions were an easy and convenient source of ‘raw material’ for vaccine testers. All three polio vaccine ‘pioneers’ tried to test their vaccines at disabled institutions and two actually did so.

The ‘Neurodiversity’ Industry Is A Cover for Vaccine Injury – Part II, Two Narratives

Introduction

Since the 1990s, the idea of ‘neurodiversity’ has become a cottage industry. The basic tenet of neurodiversity is that autism is a perfectly normal variation of human development that should not be seen as a negative trait. It seeks to highlight the alleged ‘positive’ traits of autism and believes that the struggles of people with autism are largely caused by society not being accepting rather than the inherent downsides of the condition. This article will seek to discuss three parts of this phenomenon by comparing two theories of autism: the neurodiversity theory of autism and the iatrogenic theory of autism i.e. vaccine injury. The first part will discuss the evidence for each theory, concluding that vaccine injury has a large amount of evidence to support it. The second part of this article will look at the individuals and institutions that promote each theory and how the media portrays each group. The third part will draw it together by explaining how the neurodiversity theory is constructed as an alternative to deflect from the vaccine injury theory and to gaslight people suffering with autistic vaccine-injury and their parents about their experiences.

This is part II of the three part series.

Part II: Two Narratives

Having made the case that vaccine-injury is an extremely plausible theory of autism, I will now examine the contrast between how advocates of the neurodiversity narrative and advocates of the vaccine-injury narrative have been treated by the establishment. Although the neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural and in opposition to the ordinary view of autism, in reality it is promoted by mainstream sources. On the other hand, vaccine-injury theorists – including those who have backed their theories up by significant evidence – have faced consequences from being smeared to the loss of their career.

Is Neurodiversity Countercultural?

The neurodiversity narrative claims to be countercultural. As it is a fairly recent narrative, it portrays itself as the up and coming new narrative to ‘reframe’ autism in a positive light. In fact, the article I quoted from in Part I makes this argument, comparing it to different theories of autism:

The mainstream perspective – the perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be cured by targeting the autism gene(s).

The fringe theory – the theory that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and should be cured through addressing these factors.

This narrative takes aspects of the ‘social justice’ style narrative, where those that are marginalised by society are reframing themselves as positive actors, reframing what is considered as ‘negative’ by society as a positive.

Of course, there is a long history of narratives claiming to be counterculture, when in fact, they are nothing of the sort. A good example, that has some similarities with the neurodiversity ideology, is transgenderism. Transgender ideology claims that opposite sex impersonators are a marginalized group, whereas in reality those who oppose them are censored, sacked, and smeared. Men playacting as women are promoted, celebrated and glorified in the media, with any criticism deemed as bigotry. Pharmaceutical companies support this narrative for profit, and many sinister actors use it is as a means of promoting transhumanism.

So is the neurodiversity narrative really countercultural?

In general, the best way to check if a narrative is against the establishment is to look at what the establishment actually says about it. If the establishment contains a large amount of institutions promoting a particular narrative, and is spending a lot of money on promoting a particular narrative, then there is a reason for that. So let us examine what the interconnected establishment/media/NGO complex actually states about autism and neurodiversity. This will look at several different groups: autism charities, the media, the fiction industry and other significant actors.

Autism Charities and Consultancy

Although some people would like to consider charities to be not ‘establishment’ institutions, in reality large charities are part of the establishment. Their role in society is to advance narratives that benefit establishment interests, but while seeming as if they are independent advocacy groups.

To give an example already alluded to in Part I, the Alzheimer’s Society expresses some scepticism that aluminium accumulation in the brain is the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. To acknowledge this would be bad for the establishment, since it is (elite) human action that unleashed aluminium on the environment and caused high levels of exposure. Questioning aluminium exposure in this case might lead one to come to the conclusion that the establishment does not have a concern for human health. Furthermore, obscuring the reality in this case allows Big Pharma to sell expensive patented drugs for Alzheimer’s disease, rather than reducing exposure or reducing aluminium in the human body. Foreign policy is another area where charities can be demonstrated to serve elite agendas. For example, human rights organisations will focus on violations of, say, freedom of speech by ‘enemy countries’ such as Russia, while ignoring the same or worse by Western countries or allies such as Saudi Arabia.

Of course, the issue is even more explosive when it comes to questioning vaccines, since vaccination is essentially the cult of the modern age:

Vaccinating everyone on earth (the goal of the Gates Foundation, W.H.O., Pharma, and presidents of both political parties) has nothing to do with health; its sole function is to give atheists in the developed world a feeling of heroism that supplies them with a sense of symbolic immortality.
TOBY ROGERS

So what do autism charities – allegedly set up to help people with autism – have to say about autism and neurodiversity?

The National Autistic Society is the main autism charity in the United Kingdom.

On its ’causes of autism’ page, the National Autistic Society says this:

There is no known ‘cure’ for autism. We also believe that autism does not need a ‘cure’ and should be seen as a difference, not a disadvantage. We also warn people about fake cures and potentially harmful interventions here.

This does not mean that autistic people do not face challenges, but with the right support in place, they are more than capable of living fulfilling and happy lives.

This is, of course, the neurodiversity narrative. On the other hand they say that vaccines don’t cause autism, because that idea must be opposed at all costs.

If we look at the National Autistic Society’s funding, they have a turnover of large amounts of money. If we look at their funding for 2023 in their annual accounts, they have a list of companies who they give special thanks. They have funding from some large companies such as Coca Cola and JP Morgan Chase.

It is also worth noting that there is an entire industry of autism ‘consultancy’, which is designed to promote neurodiversity, particularly relating to employment. There are a whole bunch of services available, for example, Aspire Autism Consultancy provides “bespoke neurodiversity training for therapists and healthcare practitioners.”

It is also worth noting that if you do want accommodations at work related to autism as a disability, you are basically obliged to put up with the neurodiversity framing.

The Media

The mainstream media is another crucial plank of the establishment, that serves their interests. The purpose of the media is not to present the news in an objective way, but to be propaganda for the powers that be. The structure of the mainstream media goes through multiple filters and each one excludes any opposition voices to ensure a conformity of thought.

There are plenty of articles in the media promoting the neurodiversity agenda. A survey of the media carried out by pro neurodiversity activists found the following result (abstract only available):

Results showed increased coverage of neurodiversity and neurodivergent individuals from 2016 to 2022. Key findings include an increase in calls for representation, advocacy, and the recognition of neurodiversity as a different neurotype rather than a condition to be cured.

Recently in the UK, there has been a programme hosted by Chris Packham, and autistic man and advocate for neurodiversity about autism and ADHD (ADHD is also considered to be an example of neurodiversity by advocates, and is also possibly vaccination injury although, unlike autism there is not as much evidence to prove this). I haven’t watched the programme because I don’t want to waste the energy getting angry about the obvious misrepresentation of autism that will exist within the program. It is worth noting that the programme about autism was nominated for a television award, meaning that it must have been viewed as in line with what the media and establishment wish to promote. Articles in the media have also promoted this programme, and called it moving (even the more right leaning Telegraph, which is, say, more sceptical of similar ideologies like transgenderism).

The Fiction Industry

Fiction may seem as if it is separate from the establishment, but in reality the establishment has a significant influence here as well, particularly when it comes to television. For example, it is a well-known fact that a large number of American movies are produced with the help of the intelligence agencies.

If there are characters, action or dialogue that the DOD doesn’t approve of then the film-maker has to make changes to accommodate the military’s demands. If they refuse then the Pentagon packs up its toys and goes home. To obtain full cooperation the producers have to sign contracts, called Production Assistance Agreements, which lock them into using a military-approved version of the script. [emphasis in original text]
MINT PRESS NEWS

So how are autistic people portrayed in the media? There is but one model of the autistic film or TV character and that is the ‘autistic savant’. That is, someone who is socially inept but a genius at doing some weird obscure thing which wins the character the things that they want in life. In some portrayals a biting satirical wit might be added, particularly in comedy programs, with an edge of intellectual superiority played for laughs. Sheldon Cooper of The Big Bang Theory is the best example of this.

This is basically the neurodiversity model in action. Look at those special characters that think differently that have all these wonderful things like a PhD and an amazing job! No-one puts low functioning children who have to use a diaper and are non-verbal on the TV. No-one puts the 6′ 2″ 30-year-old man with a mental age of 5 who flies into incandescent, violent rages over sensory triggers on the TV. Why would they? So fiction gives an extremely misleading picture of autism to the public that bolsters the neurodiversity model.

Although neurodiversity advocates might also complain about the portrayal of autism in the media, the reality is that it is only their own ideology being reflected back at them. The special, unique one who ‘thinks differently’: that is their argument of what autism is, not mine, and that is their portrayal of what autism is, not mine.

Conclusion

As we can see from the above collection of evidence, the establishment has expressed a significant amount of support for neurodiversity.

The Vaccine Injury Approach to Autism and Its Critics

Vaccine-injury advocates have been treated rather differently by the establishment. This section will discuss a few different advocates of the autism-vaccination link: Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Christopher Exley, and Jenny McCarthy.

Dr. Wakefield Redux

The most obvious place to start on this topic is the demonisation of the British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield is infamous among the vaccine pushers, and his name is invoked like that of the devil himself. Dr. Wakefield has been the subject of a thousand lies by the mainstream media and medical establishment. Eventually, he was struck off the medical register in 2010. His career was destroyed. So what was his ‘crime’? Simply to take parents seriously when they observed their children regressing into autistic behavior after the MMR vaccination.

So let’s look at how Dr. Wakefield got interested in the issue of the MMR vaccine and autism. After Dr. Wakefield performed studies on measles and gut issues, specifically Crohn’s disease, he was contacted by parents who saw their child regress into autistic vaccine-injury after their MMR vaccination. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK produced a case series of 12 of these children called, “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” published in the Lancet in 1998. Contra claims made by the mainstream media, which is to this day constitutionally incapable of representing this paper accurately, it was not designed to ‘prove’ that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The people who made the initial link between the MMR and autism were the parents of those children, not Dr. Wakefield.

Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media [ear infection] in another.

WAKEFIELD’S 1998 STUDY

This eventually led to him being relentlessly attacked by Brian Deer, a Telegraph ‘journalist’ who was obsessed with destroying his career. Deer made multiple false claims about Dr. Wakefield and his study. These false claims included the claim that Wakefield and his colleagues did not have ethical approval for the medical testing that they ran on the ‘Lancet 12’ children and that Dr. Wakefield misrepresented the case histories of those children to push a narrative blaming the MMR vaccine. Deer also claimed that Wakefield had unethical conflicts of interest. As a result of these claims, Dr. Wakefield was eventually struck off the medical register in 2010. There is much more detail to this story not able to be discussed here for space considerations, so I suggest reading this article by Iain Davis if you would like a refresher on the full picture.

The mainstream media continues to promote false narratives about Dr. Wakefield to this day. Wikipedia, a so called ‘neutral’ encyclopedia, but that actually serves to promote establishment narratives, refers to him as being ‘discredited’ and ‘disgraced’ which means that you know the target is somewhere in the vicinity.

I will conclude by quoting Davis:

[Wakefield] is the sacrificial lamb and a stark warning to any scientist, medical practitioner or researcher who dares to challenge the corporate dictatorship. The MSM’s annihilation of Dr. Wakefield served two purposes. Firstly to convince a misinformed public that any who suggest vaccines may not all be wonder drugs are ‘evil’ and also to put the fear of God into the scientific community.

IAIN DAVIS – ‘THE EVISCERATION OF DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD’

Dr. Christopher Exley

Dr. Christopher Exley is former Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University in the UK. He did his Ph.D. on aluminium exposure among fish and the harm that this can cause and is an extremely credible expert on the interaction of the neurotoxin aluminium with human and animal life. As shown above, he has studied the link between aluminium and autism (and other diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis). He led the Aluminium Research Group and published around 200 papers on aluminium.

So what happened to Dr. Exley after he published his group’s paper on ‘Aluminium in Brain Tissue in Autism’?

The first thing to note is that the media has attacked Dr. Exley. The Guardian accused him of pushing ‘anti-vaccine misinformation’:

A British academic who has promoted anti-vaccine misinformation has raised more than £150,000 through a university donations portal to support his research during the coronavirus crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

They quote a vaccine promoter stating that Dr. Exley’s paper is ‘bad science’ but of course do not elucidate the audience about why it is bad science (the reader doesn’t need to know that, they just need to know which hate figure ‘anti-vaxxer’ of the week they need to condemn).

An even earlier hit piece from 2019 states:

Prof Chris Exley angered health experts for claiming that tiny amounts of aluminium in inactivated vaccines, such as the HPV and whooping cough inoculations, may cause “the more severe and disabling form of autism”.

They, of course, did this in order to try to make sure that the funding portals were shut down so the research could not continue (not that Keele needed any encouragement on this front – see below).

The case of Dr. Exley also reveals something else important about our media – the principle that experts are only experts until they question vaccination, then they become ‘misinformation’. Dr. Exley was an acceptable expert for the Guardian to cite when it came to the Camelford poisoning. This case involved aluminium was accidentally dunked into residents’ drinking water in Camelford in Cornwall. One woman, Carole Cross, died from a rare form of Alzheimer’s after this poisoning, with extremely high levels of aluminium in her brain. Dr. Exley is acting within his expertise by commenting on both cases, but only one is considered to be acceptable.

Keele University basically made Dr. Exley’s position at the university untenable for questioning the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccination.

Since that time [about 2015], the university has progressed from spiking Exley’s press releases and downplaying or ignoring major scientific contributions by Exley’s research group to — perhaps most concerningly — sabotaging the research donations that are the “lifeblood” of independent-minded scientists.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE.

The University messed with his donations portal which he was using to crowdfund his research.

On the 11th of April 2019, following receipt of a number of emails from potential donors unable to make a donation using the online link, I was told by someone called Lee Bestwick in Finance that he had been instructed to disable the donations portal set up by Finance on my behalf. He was not aware that there had been no prior discussion with me about this.

In 2020, Keele University also rejected a cheque from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for $15,000 towards Dr. Exley’s research.

We appreciate your interest in the University and in our research staff who are undertaking such a wide range of interesting and pioneering work, but hope you understand the delicate balance we must maintain to ensure our public and private reputation.

Kennedy wrote in response:

I must consider that your decision to return my personal check is likely the product of the pharmaceutical industry’s open, aggressive, and rather sinister campaign to defund Professor Exley. Vaccine makers view Dr. Exley’s efforts to accurately characterize, for the first time, the health impacts of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, as a threat to their profit-taking. Terminating Professor Exley’s research has been a central objective of the $50 billion vaccine industry. This cartel wants the world to believe that aluminum in vaccines is safe despite the lack of any safety studies to indicate that is possible, and plenty of peer-reviewed literature that suggests that it is not.

Another Children’s Health Defense article states:

[A] recent letter to Exley from Keele University’s dean of natural sciences explained that “the university will no longer provide facilities to solicit or enable restricted charitable donations” to support the Exley group’s research on “the bioinorganic chemistry of aluminium and its links to neurodegenerative disease.”

The dean clarified that this would include “donations from individuals, groups, charities and foundations” — amounting to the entirety of the group’s research income.

Eventually due to this disruption of funding the research group was shut down despite having around 200 peer reviewed publications.

Furthermore, Dr. Exley was suggesting methods by which to detox from aluminium and remove it from the body in order to reduce autistic symptoms. The method Dr. Exley suggested was drinking mineral waters with a high silicic acid content, as silicic acid binds to aluminium and then it is expelled from the body via urine. Again Dr. Exley demonstrated this through science, showing increased excretion of aluminium after consuming a litre of silica water. When done on a consistent basis (daily) this reduces the body burden of aluminium including in the brain and improvements in symptoms are observed (Dr. Exley witnessed this in Alzheimer’s disease). Not only was he showing what had harmed us, he was helping us with his protocol, and I can vouch that it works personally because I have tried it.

So now we can see that Dr. Wakefield is not the only person to lose his career for questioning the links between vaccines and autism.

Jenny McCarthy: Demonised Mothers

Jenny McCarthy is a media figure who spoke out about the safety of vaccination after her son, Evan, regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine. McCarthy is different from the cases I have highlighted above in that she is the mother of a vaccine injured child. Her role as a mother affects her portrayal by the vaccine industry.

Generally speaking, mothers are considered less competent observers of their children than doctors, despite the fact that the doctor only sees the child for brief appointments and the mother is around the child 24/7. This is justified by the medical establishment, because they consider themselves to be the ‘experts’.

There is a significant amount of misogyny in the portrayal of McCarthy in the media. For example, news articles often introduce her as ‘former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy’ or other similar framing when talking about her scepticism of vaccination. The fact that McCarthy was involved in the pornography industry has no obvious relevant connection to her scepticism of vaccines. Except, in the mind of the vaccinationist, it is clearly related, since they always mention it.

The purpose of this framing is to invoke the Madonna-Whore complex, a misogynistic trope in which women are always the idealised, perfect mother, or the debased whore. Because McCarthy posed for Playboy, the implication is that she is inherently an unfit mother, unqualified to observe her son’s regression into autism. The other implication is that she is inherently stupid (women who have worked in pornography are perceived in society as ‘dumb bimbos’). Thus she is unable to correctly observe the behaviours of her own child in the mind of the vaccinationist.

Conclusion

Neurodiversity cannot be seen as an anti-establishment narrative. Like transgenderism, it is an ideology promoted by the establishment that pretends not to be promoted as such. In part III, we will discuss the target of the neurodiversity narrative – high functioning autistic people and parents of autistic children – and how this precludes vaccination criticism.

A UK Court Actually Did Something Sane

On the 15th April 2025, the UK Supreme Court made a ruling on the Equality Act 2010 relating to the definition of the word ‘woman’ under that act. The court ruled that the definition of woman under the Act is biological, that is, the only people who count as women under the Act are actual women and girls, and men who claim to be women, even those with a so-called ‘Gender Recognition Certificate’ (GRC) are not women for the purposes of the Act.

I will try and explain this ruling from the start by clarifying the meanings of the terms used above for anyone who is not in the UK or who is unaware of these pieces of legislation.

The Legal Madness of the Gender Recognition Act

In order to explain the decision and its context we need to look at the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), passed in 2004. The GRA allows for people to lie about their sex by getting a certificate that recognises them as the other ‘gender’ in law. This only applies to a man being ‘recognised’ as a woman and vice versa, and does not allow for ‘recognition’ of other identities people have come up with, such as ‘non-binary’, etc.

This legislation is not a complete free for all, because it does require those seeking to get a GRC to meet certain limited criteria such as living in their ‘new gender’ for 2 years and pay an extremely nominal fee (it used to be around £180, but this was reduced to £5 a few years ago). Nevertheless it allows the lie of a male woman and a female man to be recognised in law which makes it absurd regardless.

The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act was designed to ‘pull together’ all discrimination acts (such as sex and race discrimination) into one overriding law. As such, it contains nine characteristics that are protected under law, for example when it comes to employers discriminating against applicants.

The question put before the Supreme Court related to the protected characteristic of sex. They were asked to interpret what the word ‘sex’ means in the Act, and whether it means what it means in reality (I.e. male and female) or whether there are certain men who can be classified as belonging to the ‘female sex’ legally.

The Court ruled that the meaning of the Act is that sex means biological sex, I.e. male and female are two discrete categories (based on reality) for the purposes of applying the Act.

Implications

The implications of this ruling mean that there is a solid legal foundation for excluding men who claim to be women from certain places, regardless of identity or GRC. The Equality Act allows for exclusion of one sex or the other from certain spaces if it is proportionate. For example, excluding men from jobs at a rape crisis or domestic violence shelter, while technically discrimination, is proportionate under the Act because it protects abused women from further victimisation.

Is this issue finished?

Many people in the UK have declared victory over the insanity of transgenderism due to this ruling.

However, I am not confident that we are done with the transgender madness. There is still a large amount of money behind this agenda, and when there is money pushing something we can always be sure it will continue to be promoted by those factions of the elite (pharmaceutical companies, etc).

There is also the possibility that the government can change the law. This ruling is only an interpretation of the Equality Act. If the government wished to introduce a new piece of legislation overriding that Act, they could always do so. The current UK PM Keir Starmer has flip flopped endlessly on the issue. Starmer has no actual principles, so he would be open-minded about doing anything the establishment wants. In the short term however this scenario is unlikely.

The lie in law of the Gender Recognition Act remains. The issue cannot be legally resolved until the GRA is repealed. This is without considering the question of broader resistance against establishment agendas, which requires broader thinking than simply sorting out a legal mess that should never have come to exist.

Conspiracy Theories

I want a being who would never betray me

Who isn’t

Layers upon layers

Who isn’t overwritten

With narrative

Who isn’t saying it

For a buck

Or a game

Or to be the master of lies.

There is no path in this morass

I cannot put the burden down

Of knowing that their game is four dimensions

And I can only see three, two, one.

There needs to be someone that isn’t a mask

A persona in their matrix

A little twist to lead to the abyss

With no one to trust

So I’m punch drunk.

There is no resistance without trust

And there is no trust.

Free Lucy Letby Protest Part 2 – The Protest and Narratives

On 17th March 2025, a protest took place in Liverpool outside the Thirlwall Inquiry stating the innocence of a nurse, Lucy Letby, who has been convicted of murdering several babies. For the problems with the case against Letby, see Part 1.

The Protest

The protest took place between 9 and 10am outside Liverpool Town Hall. The protest was called by the Spartacist League, which is a UK Trotskyist group. While the protest was called by this group, they explicitly stated in their promotion of the protest that anyone who agreed with the message of Free Lucy Letby could/should attend.

I don’t know how many attendees were affiliated with this group. There were only a few attendees at this event (less than 100) so I would guess the majority are Spartacist League members.

The Spartacist League, because they are a Marxist group, have a particular spin on things. Marxist groups, by and large, believe that even a capitalist/bourgeois state can provide important concessions to the working class and that these concessions are worth defending. (At this point in my life, and I confess I have thought differently in the past, I believe the only stance to take is that against anything that enhances state power and control on principle, and that radical decentralisation is the only possible means to prevent corruption).

As such, the framing put forward by the Spartacist League is that of a hard-working and competent nurse framed up for systemic failures, such as the sewage mentioned in Part 1. This is true as far as it goes, in that I do believe the Countess of Chester Hospital consultants and the police sought to scapegoat Letby for these failings by accusing her of deliberately murdering babies.

The Spartacist League links the failings of the NHS to the right wing agenda of reducing the amount of funding available to the NHS, which is why these failings exist. The League (correctly) sees Labour and the Conservatives as part of the same system (they both support the same key policies such as, say, imperialist wars).

Fundamentally, the League perceives the NHS as worth defending as an institution that provides health care to ordinary people free at the point of use and funded via taxation. The establishment sees the problem as an allegedly ‘rogue’ nurse such as Letby, whereas the opposition sees the problem as the lack of funding and corruption in management. While corruption in power structures is a real issue, neither of these narratives examines the allopathic medical paradigm as an issue.

The Allopathic Paradigm

The allopathic medical paradigm is based upon two broad factors – the separation of Western societies from natural medical knowledge, and the rise of the chemical industries in the late 19th century (the root of the modern pharmaceutical industry).

Western populations were separated from natural medical knowledge via the phenomenon of the Witch Trials. Female healers, who served the interests of the people they attended, were viciously exterminated under the guise of the Church. While the Church’s aim was to increase its own power, the Witch Trials had the effect of eliminating any competition that could arise to the allopathic paradigm in Western societies.

The second factor, the chemical industry, came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, particularly in Germany. This industry directly spawned the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is the basis of the modern NHS, because although it is directly run by the state, it purchases all of its drugs via the pharmaceutical industry, and its treatments are mostly dependent upon this industry.

Returning to Lucy Letby, she was an operative within this particular paradigm, and an agent of such. Any (inadvertent) harm she did would have been as an operative within the paradigm itself. For example, her Wikipedia page states that:

[I]n April 2016, she administered antibiotics to an infant that was not prescribed them, which she misclassified as a “minor error”.

I would bet any nurse, doctor, etc. has done the same thing or similar, and if they have a long enough career, probably multiple times.

Anyone on those wards could have caused harm to those babies, through this kind of method, or through a drug harming a baby more generally. It is much more plausible that this happened, than the alternative of Letby as psychopathic baby killer.

One final point to make. The allopathic paradigm believes its control over nature is complete. The fact that these babies were highly vulnerable and would have been at high risk of death even with the best of intentions is ignored. This links directly to the ideological belief of absolute control over nature, which is fundamental to allopathic medicine.

Conclusion

I believe the murder charges against Lucy Letby are most likely unjust and that the conviction in this case is unsafe. I believe her defence lawyers did not present a good case for her innocence. There does need to be another trial in this case.

This should not be confused with believing that the allopathic medical system should be defended. Letby was a low-level operative within that system, who took the blame for its failings. She bears no more or less guilt than any other similar operative.

Free Lucy Letby Protest, Part 1 – Background

On the 17th March 2025, there was a protest in Liverpool outside the Thirlwall Inquiry. The protest was about stating the case for the innocence of Lucy Letby, a nurse who worked in the National Health Service (NHS) and was convicted of murdering several babies on a neonatal unit.

Liverpool Town Hall, the location of the Thirlwall inquiry

Context

Lucy Letby was a neonatal nurse working on a ward in the Countess of Chester Hospital. While she was working there, there was an above average number of baby deaths on the unit. When this was looked into, it was claimed that one particular nurse, Letby, was on shift for the suspicious baby collapses and deaths. As such, Letby was charged with murder and attempted murder, and was convicted in 2023. The case against her rested on circumstantial medical evidence presented by the prosecution.

The purpose of the Thirlwall inquiry was to examine why warnings about Letby were ignored and how she was allowed to act to kill babies.

Doubts about the Conviction of Lucy Letby

Many people – an increasing number – have been questioning the conviction of Letby. This includes even some mainstream examples.

I was first made aware of the weaknesses in the case against Letby by Norman Fenton, who you may be aware of, as he has questioned the official Covid narrative. The original reason for suspecting Letby was statistical, that is, she was on shift for the baby collapses and deaths. Fenton pointed out that the data was cherry picked, and that a similar chart could be made for any nurse by simply selecting the events that happened when they happened to be on shift.

Scott McLachan, who Fenton interviewed, has pointed to a plausible alternative explanation for the deaths. During the period that Letby worked there, the unit was handling very vulnerable premature babies. The building where the unit was housed also had very old plumbing systems, with a high probability of leakage. There was evidence of water contamination at the hospital and the death certificates of many of the babies included sepsis. There was also a high probability of natural death of these babies due to extreme vulnerability.

More recently, mainstream figures have questioned the case against Letby. David Davis, a Conservative politician, has stated there is a “high probability” that Letby is innocent. He argues that there is no evidence of murders in the accounts of the trial or transcripts, and that a large number of medical experts question the evidence presented by Dewi Evans, the medical expert relied on by the prosecution. Peter Hitchens, a Mail on Sunday journalist, has also expressed doubts about the case.

Motives for Blaming Lucy Letby

There are several motives to blame Letby for the baby deaths. The hospital was clearly unsanitary, and they were treating very vulnerable babies. As with everything else, there is always the tendency to blame someone low down the food chain, rather than consultants, doctors, or top-level managers. Only nurses were mapped on the statistical chart used against Letby, but if there was a murderer on the ward, why not consider the doctors as equally possible culprits?

It is worth noting that Letby was charged in November 2020, which was still in the middle of the ‘Covid pandemic’ narrative, if not quite the peak. During the ‘pandemic’, the NHS was glamourised, and a failing ward such as we observed at Countess of Chester Hospital would not have fit with that narrative. There is one further critical question to ask: what if Letby is simply a scapegoat for failings of the allopathic medical system?

Conclusion

It is unlikely that Lucy Letby consciously killed babies as some sort of psychopathic thrill, as alleged by the prosecution. The second part of this article will be a more critical follow up, covering the protest itself, the framing of the narrative put forward by the protest organisers, and the flaws of that framing. We will also return to critical questions of guilt within the allopathic medical paradigm, and how all practitioners are embodiments of that guilt.

Cassandra’s Box Update

Apologies for the lack of updates. I am still around but dealing with temporary personal situations and other stuff.

I hope to be back with new posts in mid-March.

Thanks.

Right wing causes can be used to push the control agenda – the case of immigration

Introduction

Many people know and understand that stereotypically left wing causes – such as the environment or transgenderism – can be used to promote state control agendas. However, there is much less consideration of how right wing ideas can be used to push the same control matrix. As right wingers claim to be ‘small government’, it is often assumed that right wing ideas cannot be used to push for these sinister agendas. However, there are some ideas on the right that can be used for this purpose. One of the most significant of these is immigration.

It should be noted that the terms left and right are overgeneralisations, just as not all left wingers support transgender ideology, for example, not all right wingers are supportive of the ideas outlined below. For example, this analysis would not apply to many members of the libertarian right. However, I will use right wing in this article as a shorthand.

Definitions

Certain right wing political parties – for example, Reform UK – are extremely concerned with illegal immigration and use this to appeal to voters. I would say that reducing immigration is Reform UK’s main policy. In the UK, there are a large number of small boats that attempt to land on the shore so that people can illegally enter the country. There are some examples of both refugees and economic migrants entering the country via this method. Parties such as Reform argue that this has negative effects on the country, such as crime and the risk of terrorism, as well as reducing the wages paid to British people via illegal immigrants taking jobs. They also point to costs to the stage of hosting individuals they have caught illegally entering the country (the famed ‘migrant hotels’). As such, a more robust response seems attractive to many people on the right, or many working class people who are concerned about their income.

Pragmatism

When looking at this topic, we need to consider it pragmatically. What would effectively policing illegal immigration look like?

Britain has an open coastline.

According to the Ordnance Survey: “The coastline length around mainland Great Britain is 11,072.76 miles [17,819.88 km].”

Policing simply chokeholds or more obvious areas would not be effective, since boats would simply avoid the more obvious routes even if it was riskier. Bear in mind that the boats seen on the news, etc, are only the boats that are known, there may be many that successfully crossed the border, and the people disappeared into the shadow economy. As such, there would need to be a massive increase in border control police.

This is a large amount of territory to have to police effectively. Sure, there may be some areas of this where it would be difficult to land a boat, so that may reduce the volume somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still a large amount.

Businesses employing illegal immigrants would be another significant issue, as there would need to be increased checks on businesses, and raids on businesses if it suspected they are employing illegal immigrants.

There is also the issue of removing the immigrants effectively. This might encourage more rubber stamping in the judiciary to deport people more quickly.

In other words, effectively removing illegal immigrants would require an increase in state authoritarianism. More police officers would need to be employed, and there would need to be an increase in checks, possibly arbitrary ones, to see if people were hosting or employing illegal immigrants.

Agendas

During Covid, and even before that, it became obvious that one of the key state agendas was the introduction of Digital ID. It was argued that digital identity needed to be linked to vaccine passports in order to ‘control the virus’.

However, policing illegal immigration can also be used by the establishment to promote digital IDs. On this argument, these IDs would be required to confirm that people are citizens or legal migrants. In fact, one of Tony Blair’s arguments for the original ID card scheme, which was eventually scrapped, was to crack down on illegal immigration.

Conclusion

Nominally right wing and left wing ideas can both be used to promote a state control matrix. The establishment is not concerned with which of these ideas it uses to get you to support the increased level of control. So long as it can garner enough support to get these ideas through or at least get you to tolerate them, that is the only thing that matters. People should consider whether ideas they support (whether they are right wing or not) can be used to support these agendas and not assume their ideology is immune from being used by the establishment.

G. B. H.

You feel sure that you must scream

Must have screamed when confronted with that needle

Must have known what it meant

Deep in the bones

Deep in the soul

When they smile over your tomb

Praise you for doing well

When they buried you in

The type that

Can’t be scrubbed out from your pores

Can’t be scratched out through your blood

Can’t be pissed out on the floor

Can’t be emptied out

But must empty you out

Death as a Weapon: The Use of the Threat of Death by Allopathic Medical Practitioners

Introduction

The concept of death is often invoked in the discourse of allopathic medicine. This is for the obvious reason that medicine is concerned with issues of life and death on its face. However, death is also used as a discourse in cases where it has no particular relevance: the patient in question does not have a life threatening disease. In these cases, death is evoked as a means to get a parent or patient to comply with the doctor’s desires for treatment. This is seen in two specific cases: transgender ideology and vaccination.

Death in Transgender Ideology

Transgender ideology is based upon the idea of gender identity. The theory of gender identity claims that an individual’s ‘gender’ can be different from their sex. There is more than one theory about how this works among gender ideologues. One theory says there are only two ‘genders’, man and woman, but that either sex can identify as either gender. The other theory states that there are all kinds of different genders apart from man and woman. These gender identities impose costs and obligations on other people, as people are expected to use pronouns in line with the other person’s identity as well as believe that a man is actually a woman and vice versa.

The transgender phenomenon is a boon to the medical profession. The provision of opposite sex hormones and imitation surgeries provides a large source of profit for pharmaceutical companies. It creates whole specialties for doctors and surgeons to work in, and allows them a tremendous amount of power over human bodies. They get to play at attempting to create whole new sex organs and come up with their own bizarre combinations. As such they have an incentive to promote this ideology, particularly to those who will be vulnerable to accepting it.

As such, parents of underage children who identify as transgender are a significant target for this kind of manipulation. They are generally suffering from a large amount of confusion regarding their child’s declaration of their identity. They often do not know how to react. Sometimes parents have an innate suspicion of the extreme measures suggested by the gender ideologues, of puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries. This is due to the permanent nature of the intervention, as well as the fact that teenagers especially often have identity issues that resolve over time without any help. As there is a connection between the autism epidemic and transgender identity, parents also often consider that their vaccine injured children are being manipulated due to poor social skills.

Doctors advocate transgender hormones and surgery as the only option for these children and teenagers who declare a transgender identity. This is regardless of the possible cause of the declaration. In doctors’ minds, there can only be one cause, that the person is truly a ‘different gender’ and that is the cause of the declaration. However, in order to get wary parents to go along with the medical intervention required they need a stronger justification than this.

This is where the threat of death enters the picture. Suicide is considered to be an almost inevitable result of refusing to accept an individual’s self declaration of identity. The idea is often put to parents of ‘would you rather have a live daughter or a dead son’ to emphasise the inevitability of suicide without medical intervention.

Death in Vaccination Ideology

Vaccination ideology states that death from infection was rampant before vaccination, and only vaccination has been able to tame it. Vaccinationists dismiss all other context as irrelevant. For example, they ignore diet and access to food, sanitation or the lack thereof, economic factors, etc, in death rates from disease.

Doctors and scientists advocate vaccination in every and all circumstances, and they obviously gain large amounts from vaccination. This includes financial gain from both vaccination and treating vaccination injuries, whether this is direct via profits from vaccines or indirect via the higher demand for the service created by vaccination or injury. Doctors are also strongly ideologically committed to vaccination.

As such, they seek to get people to take vaccines, and parents are the main target in the promotion of vaccine ideology. However, some parents have concerns about vaccination. These concerns can range in scope and scale and can include belief that a specific child should not receive a vaccine due to individual sensitivity as well as criticism of vaccination in general. Concerns can involve: belief that a vaccine causes injury, particularly autism; belief that the amount of vaccines on the childhood schedule is excessive; or concerns about certain ingredients in vaccines such as thimerosal or aluminium (this list is not exhaustive).

Doctors deal with these concerns by invoking the threat of death. A parent is told that their child is at very high risk of death should the parent decline vaccination. Diseases where there is a vaccination are portrayed as equally deadly regardless of context. In some cases, the fact that the disease had a high death rate in times past, or has a high death rate in developing countries, is used as evidence for the current risk.

The media also covers stories where they allege that children died (or became disabled) due to lack of vaccination. Usually in this type of media story the parent is portrayed as being repentant and regretting not vaccinating.

Conclusion

Both transgender ideology and vaccination ideology seek to control people using the fear of death. In particular the fear a parent has over the death of their child. They grossly overexaggerate the risk to a child of not taking a particular medical intervention. In fact, there are plausible arguments that both of these medical interventions are more likely to directly or indirectly cause death than prevent death.

Both these ideologies also offer a form of illusory control over death, which is an attractive proposition to parents who fear the death of their child. Transgender ideology states that a child’s suicidal tendencies can be checked if only they are fully accepted. When this fails, perhaps due to the medical abuse inflicted on the child, it can simply be claimed that they were not accepted enough. Vaccination seeks to abolish disease via the needle. If disease is not abolished, it is the fault of antivaccinationists. The main difference between the two ideologies is that vaccinationists seek to blame a child’s unvaccinated body for death in other people, whereas in transgenderism the blame is only for self-inflicted death.