John Engen’s Terminal Diagnosis: Clever Ploy or Karmic Consequence?

It pays to be suspicious when powerful people tell you that a certain subject is “off limits”. Our first line of defense against abuses of power is dissent, but entrenched systems have a way of turning seemingly innocuous movements and ideologies to their advantage. Missoula’s latest goodwill coup d’état involves the concerted effort of all local mainstream media, who assert in various ways that criticism of Mayor John Engen is off the table due to his diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The circumstances, we are told, necessitate an easing of pressure upon the almighty five-term Mayor from dissenters, political opponents and the activist community.

Once again we the people are presented with an emotional argument aimed to distract us into feeling sorry for Mr. John Engen, a man responsible for such a vast amount of human misery it boggles the mind to comprehend. We’re supposed to focus again on feelings instead of facts. Quite ironically, facts that represent heinous crimes of incomprehensible betrayal that have caused terribly hurt feelings across the board for Missoula’s poor and working class.

For those who might think it tasteless to kick a man while he’s down, remember that the Mayor and his cronies have a well-established history of kicking Missoula’s citizens while they’re down. As a matter of routine, low-income residents are rendered homeless by Engen’s real estate parasites, and when outrage inevitably boils over, City officials then patronize the citizenry with condescending accusations of ignorance, i.e. the public just doesn’t understand the policies.

Since Engen took office in 2006 Missoula has become the “next San Francisco.” Under John Engen’s leadership, Missoula’s wealth disparity grew to the 33rd highest in the United States. Rents and property taxes in the Garden City have continuously exploded to the point of displacing thousands of locals. And the people who have become rich from those price hikes are all friendly enough with our mayor to donate to his campaign again and again.

John Engen is the mayor of Missoula who drank on the job for months, then later admitted to his extensive benders after he got the taxpayers to cover his alcohol treatment following an incident that got him kicked off an airplane. John Engen is the mayor who got the taxpayers to pay for his $23,000 gastric bypass surgery, which in the long-haul, accomplished absolutely nothing for his health.

John Engen’s administrative blundering resulted in such egregious abuses of power that Jon Krakauer felt prompted to write a book called Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town. Enrollment at Missoula’s university never recovered. But John Engen’s bumbling has also cost Missoulians millions in astronomical lawyer fees to wrest control of our water system away from corporate influences, only to see our rates increase dramatically under local management. John Engen’s failed 10-Year-Plan-To-End-Homelessness has ended in such utter failure that his administration defaulted to hiring private goons with loaded guns to patrol the city.

Our bureaucrats speak as though the catastrophic harm done to our neighbors and our communities can somehow be construed as justifiable in any way. They hypnotically chant phrases like “affordable housing” and words like “density” in their Jedi-mind-trick to convince locals that “these are not the taxes you’re looking for.” One needs only to observe the measurable harm done to Missoula over the past decade to acknowledge that the ends will predictably always justify the means for Engen’s donors, sycophants and followers.

So this monster finally gets sick and we’re all supposed to turn on the sympathy waterworks? What about all the displaced families whose lives were ruined by Engen’s real estate buddies? Did any of them ever get sick with a terminal illness?

But Missoula’s liberal voters don’t seem to care as much for those people’s feelings, therefore that brand of suffering doesn’t really exist. In fact, the poor bastards should love what’s happening, especially with the City’s abuse of tax money through TIF, because it’s making so much profit for the people whose feelings do matter. People like Bill Coffee of Stockman Bank, who profits hand-over-fist every time the City passes a new TIF project (or pays interest on the money Stockman laundered through the bureaucracy). Or people like Peter Lambros, who got the City to cough up $8.6 million in taxpayer money to spruce up Southgate Mall, only to stiff Missoulians by flipping the Mall to Washington Prime for $58 million. Or people like Andy Holloran, who earned his TIF money demolishing historic structures to build luxury hotels. All of these players donate money to Engen Inc.

Isn’t it amazing that our beloved Eggman Engen can now run his government smoke-screen show from behind the curtain? He doesn’t even have to come into the office anymore because ostensibly everyone in the area-code feels sorry for him. This arrangement certainly gives new meaning to the term “sitting mayor,” if one does not actually have to sit upon the throne to wield its power. Ordinarily a shadowy puppet master requires a figurehead to actually sit upon the throne while he wields inscrutable power from behind it, but in yet another perversion of the natural order, John has arranged things so he can rule from the shadows without the bother of putting anybody in his place to absorb the criticism of a restless populace. Maximize sympathy. Minimize criticism. Discredit heretics. Perhaps his campaign donors are doing everything they can to continue propping ol’ John up. After all, they’ve all become quite comfortable with the slices of pie this administration has been able to provide to them over the years at the expense of the taxpayers.

Engen maintains power in part by ruthlessly destroying the reputations of his opponents. Jacob Elder became the most recent example of what happens when someone gets in the way of Engen’s political steamroller. Prior to Elder, Engen’s machine tore Lisa Triepke apart on the basis of her divorce. Meanwhile, John was allowed to cheat on his wife while parading around his mistress at public functions, and Missoula saw fit to reward his hypocrisy with media silence and repeated reelections.

John Engen’s government has ruined the lives of countless locals and made a significant contribution to Montana’s role as the Suicide Capital of America. Suicides caused by Engen’s judges filling the jails with petty offenders. Suicides caused by skyrocketing property taxes that displaced families from homes our forefathers built with their bare hands. And the suicides that continue today in the gentrified nightmare that is the community formerly known as Missoula. It’s nothing personal. It’s just business. The “new normal” in Engen’s Missoula.

It is surely a coincidence that all the newspapers John wrote for are still in business, while all the independent media that ever dared to express criticism of John’s policies were systematically eliminated. Engen’s political machine razes anything that gets in its way, transforming purple mountains majesty into mountains of garbage, collateral wreckage and wasted lives. John Engen has helped his big business buddies railroad the community under a for-profit banner before then mercilessly patronizing anyone left willing to vocalize their outrage about Missoula’s new predatory direction. He actually shut off a citizen’s microphone during public comment time on the basis of “untrue information,” in-turn violating the first amendment of our constitution (which John, a longtime journo himself, should himself be aware of). Apparently John’s policies are so perfect they needn’t be articulated, and the blasphemies of critics are wrong by default of opposing a sacrosanct deity.

Lies and spin are all locals can ever depend on, be it the silly rationalizations for chopping down all the trees on the County Court House lawn (including the Blue Spruce planted to honor 9/11’s fallen, dubbed the “911 Memorial Tree” to help Missoulians “never forget”), or the reasons for employing mercenaries to patrol the city with live ammunition, or the truth about the demonstrable harms of Tax Increment Financing. And with Missoula’s vanishing tax base unable to cover the basic costs of road maintenance and schools, they’ve proposed a “local option” sales tax. Perhaps none of this seems surprising given that Engen’s very first campaign manager, John Talbott, came to Missoula after retiring from the CIA to work for Lee Enterprises, parent company of The Missoulian and the same company that bought the Missoula Independent just to shut it down. The duplicity never ends.

Given that Missoula’s donor class requires Engen’s policies remain in place, the post-election hand-off of the mayoral coattails to Council President Gwen Jones might be more premeditated than many are willing to admit. Having proven herself an uncompromising Engen loyalist, Gwen can help Missoula’s donor class feel secure in the guarantee of a continuity of government. Engen steps aside. Jones steps up. The monopolies remain intact. The donors remain happy. The underclass continues to suffer, toil and die. The business train remains on track and on schedule. It seems like nothing—not even a terminal illness—can stop John’s monstrous mayoral machine.

Perhaps John’s tumor (if it’s real) stands as the harbinger of a harsher reality relating to Missoula’s increasing hypertoxicity. It seems incontrovertible to assert that Missoula has become a hyper-toxic environment, and our Great Leader’s sickness could be a warning for the rest of us to get out while we still can. Maybe spending another minute engaged with this leviathan can only further ensnare one’s spirit and deteriorate one’s health. Because Missoula’s toxicity isn’t limited only to its political swamp of eternal stench; it’s now also literally toxic, again due to Engen’s duplicitous leadership.

For example, Engen’s Parks and Rec department indiscriminately sprays carcinogenic RoundUp all over our schools, parks, trails and riverbeds. This thoughtless activity pollutes Missoula’s aquifer, and in-turn, Missoula’s source of drinking water, with a deadly carcinogen. Under Engen’s lead, Parks ‘n Wreck also chopped most of the trees down along the Clark Fork River and viola! A plethora of unlawful homeless encampments are revealed for a different kind of roundup to occur, this time leading homeless individuals into the fenced-walls of Missoula’s Clark Fork Lane Concentration Camp. Said camp sits along the shoreline of the Clark Fork River, which is now so full of the lead, arsenic and chromium from upriver mines (like Butte’s mile-wide, mile-deep superfund site known as the Berkeley Pit) that Missoulians can no longer safely eat the fish angled from its shores. Add to this the atmospheric inversion that results in some of the worst air quality in the region, made worse by the radioactive coal shipped through from a not-so-distant sacrifice zone on its way to a Chinese power plant, and you’ve got a recipe for manifesting a multitude of illnesses.

Functioning as the administrator for so much of this corporate pillaging, John Engen has also finally succumbed to the same force that he has allowed himself to become in his community. As above, so below, and John has himself become a metastasizing cancer that daily threatens the health, safety and survival of the people surrounding him. Engen’s tentacles strangle and smother life from every corner of the Garden City until the only thing left are the lifeless condo towers looming over a concrete landfill trampled by tourists, degraded by developers and sold off by politicians. Symptoms of disease.

When Mayor Bill Cregg was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he put a gun to his head and splattered the wall with his brains. When Mayor John Engen was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he hid in the shadows and put the bill for his treatments on the taxpayers. A parasite vying for self preservation. A smug traitor who sold out his neighbors with a condescending smile. No sympathy for the devil.

Missoula’s Concentration Camp: Shitting into the Lungs of the Homeless

The human sense of smell is predicated upon the detection of tiny particles diffusing from their source into the air we breathe, which we experience as aromas and fragrances. So whether you’re detecting bananas or dog doo with your olfactory nerve, what you’re actually sensing is the presence of tiny bits of physical banana (or dog doo) floating into your nose. Keep this fact in mind because we’ll be returning to it presently.

The homelessness catastrophe unfolding in Missoula’s liberal utopia continues plummeting to previously unimaginable depths. As many locals are already aware, our beloved Mayor John Engen leveraged this crisis to score political points in 2012 with his fabulous 10-Year-Plan-To-End-Homelessness. In his 2015 TEDx talk at the University of Montana, Engen declared that, “We in Missoula, Montana are going to end homelessness because we believe that everyone has a right to a safe, decent place to live.”

Ten years into the 10-Year-Plan and things appear to have grown worse. Much worse. As droves of locals are pushed into homelessness by skyrocketing property taxes and increased rents, some decide to live in their cars while others move away. Many more choose suicide. And last summer we witnessed a previously unimaginable extreme of this war waged on working people when literally thousands of Missoula locals were pushed out of their housing simply because giant property management companies realized what a gold mine they all were sitting on. 

The demand for housing in Missoula has exploded beyond available supply to the point that rents doubled and tripled across the board in the summer of 2021. With few protections in place for renters, our homeless population ballooned, and our leaders continue to shrug it off as simply “the market’s will.” We ought to note that Mayor John Engen’s NeoLiberal policies aren’t helping any of this, but his administration continues adding insult to injury by affixing feeble Band-Aids to mortal wounds.

It’s become difficult to keep up with Missoula’s dizzying array of homeless shelters, transitional housing, congregate shelters and outdoor spaces. These include the Poverello Center (Montana’s largest homeless shelter), YWCA Meadowlark, Valor House, Clark Fork Inn Transitional Shelter, Sleepy Inn Congregate Shelter, Johnson Street Shelter (aka the “Snake Pit”) and the Transitional Safe Outdoor Space (TSOS) on South Brooks. There is also the soon-to-be completed Trinity Project, seated strategically near Missoula’s Pre-Release center and Detention Facility to function as another stone in the halfway-house-brick-road for those in need of so-called “supportive housing”. 

Said shelters are increasingly coming under the watchful eye of Rogers International, a shady private security firm hired by the City of Missoula with federal COVID money through Reaching Home under a $670,000 contract. Reaching Home is the organization tasked with enacting Mayor Engen’s failed 10-Year-Plan-To-End-Homelessness by establishing “a strong Coordinated Entry System” that, they say, “makes homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring for people in our community.” It seems obvious to anyone who lives here that these plans have utterly failed, because homelessness is anything but rare, brief or non-recurring in Missoula. And instead of asking why the Garden City now has such a burgeoning homeless population, the companies financing our political leaders have found ways to profit handsomely from the disaster by exacerbating and prolonging its central causes. Good-olde Disaster Capitalism at work.

But Missoula’s leaders have proven incapable of admitting fault or even apologizing for mistakes, exemplified most recently by their conceited reaction to the wave of legitimate criticism regarding the Rogers contract. Proving once again that Missoula’s entrenched bureaucracy will do almost anything to defend the profits of its donors, Emily Armstrong of Reaching Home was caught in a lie last week when she was quoted in the Missoulian as saying that schools and neighbors explicitly asked for armed mercenaries to patrol their neighborhoods as part of Operation Shelter.

Unfortunately for Miss Armstrong, recently published Emails prove that Barbara Frank, the principal of Lowell Elementary—one of the schools primarily affected—was completely unaware of this development. A far cry from Armstrong’s claims that “schools near the shelters have asked for security to just patrol the area.”

But Council President (and soon to be de facto Mayor) Gwen Jones chimed in to further belittle the ignorant concerns of heretics and naysayers, with all-too familiar patronizing condescension, suggesting that freshmen Counsil members “do more research to understand what led to the security contract and why it took its current form.” Because our entrenched bureaucracy will do anything to defend the profits of its donors.

While it remains unproven that such shady deals as private security occupation of our neighborhoods have resulted in direct kickbacks to the likes of John Engen, Rogers International is only one of the many splashbacks soaking Missoula’s hapless bottoms; the inevitable consequence of a load too heavy with corruption; the guaranteed result of an over-indulgence in meals scooped from the eponymous “pork barrel” of pork barrel politics. Garbage in, garbage out.

Alongside this immense shelter infrastructure, Missoula’s Homeless-Industrial-Complex recently opened their latest and greatest human misery experiment, the Clark Fork Lane Concentration Camp. Of course, the “liberal” leaders of Missoula have chosen to couch the abysmal reality of this facility in euphemism with the less offensive, politically correct moniker, “Authorized Campsite.”

If you think “concentration camp” seems a tad hyperbolic, you might be unfamiliar with the conditions on the ground, including the chain link fence and razor wire outlining the perimeter of this facility. You might be unaware of the large cell tower looming over this encampment, exposing the inhabitants to dangerous levels of sustained EMF radiation. You may be oblivious to the armed private security firm that’s now employed to conduct “sweeps” throughout the city to roundup homeless strays back into this corral. And you might not be aware of the occupying “homeless gang” that made headlines following an “axe assault” last month. 

While such ugly headlines represent an unwelcome skid mark in the pristine white shorts of the Garden City, this is the true face of Engen’s Missoula; the other, “other cheek” upon which we could never bring ourselves to turn. A cold dystopia characterized by bleak desperation. An entire working demographic made obsolete by automation, outsourcing, and austerity, left to wander an increasingly hostile city with no purpose or place or meaning. A hopeless nightmare visited on occasion by political tourists who take selfies and pat themselves on the back for exposing themselves to such degradation, before ultimately retiring to their comfortable fantasies and forgetting all about those people, until then next political cycle.

But the devil resides in the details, and the fact that this homeless encampment is surrounded by Missoula’s sewage treatment facility (which includes the Composting Facility site as well as the Poplar tree farm meant to absorb and digest Missoula’s wastewater) may be the most offensive, egregious, and diabolical aspect.

As anyone remotely familiar with the Missoula Valley will tell you, hot summer nights invite an unbearable stench into the homes of those who live anywhere near the sewage treatment facility. Those willing to brave the nearby Super WalMart parking lot on a hot day know this, and motorists routinely roll up their windows when approaching the nearby Reserve Street Bridge. 

It stinks. But that stench is more than just an inconvenience. Since smells represent diffused particles that have become disconnected from their source, as mentioned earlier, Missoula’s “Authorized Camp” situation presents a unique health crisis.

Every poop a Missoulian takes into a porcelain receptacle gets flushed down into the municipal pipes and pushed around on its way to the sewage plant. And on hot summer days the combined fecal offerings of over 70,000 humans lifts into the air around said plant. It is therefore reasonable to assert that the atmosphere surrounding the facility contains the recently excreted poop particles direct from the asses of every housed Missoulian living within the city. Those particles are then continuously breathed in by homeless people who were forcibly relocated to this location from “unlawful encampments” all throughout the valley by armed enforcers.

One might be forgiven for likening the degenerating state of American democracy to a cesspool, however unflattering such a comparison might be to the cesspool. The diligent action of barely-better-than-bacteria private interests constantly breaking down all available resources to feed their own microbial hunger feels very much encouraged by our elected officials and their sprawling bureaucracy. Under optimal circumstances, a cesspool can be a necessary and beneficial amenity. But Missoula’s countless radical adventures in political corruption has brought the cesspool into our City Hall, into our living rooms, and now directly into our very lungs.

The Martin v. City of Boise decision by the 9th Circuit limits a City’s ability to criminalize homelessness, meaning Cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough shelter beds available for their homeless population. Therefore, a municipality does not have carte blanche to raid shantytowns and other homeless encampments with assault rifles and bulldozers in the style of They Live, unless the City has designated a suitable alternative location for society’s underclass.

Then they can. 

As reported by Katie Miller of MTN News

“…  in Missoula, people live in vehicles, tents, and trailers — and they park where they can. But oftentimes, that’s against city ordinance. Missoula City Ordinance 9.34.040 states “it is unlawful for any person to sit, lie or sleep upon any street or alley within the city limits of Missoula.”… when Missoula Police respond to these types of calls, officers will now encourage people to move to the camping site on Clark Fork Lane.”

That’s correct, folks. Yes, they “encourage” people to move, in exactly the same way the Salish tribe was encouraged to relocate to the Flathead Indian Reservation over a century ago. Just as Japanese and Italian Americans were encouraged to relocate to our very own Fort Missoula Alien Detention Center during the Second World War. Also note the careful framing of this newer ordinance that has generated nothing but controversy since its passage in 2013. The more things change the more they remain the same, and the classical cautionary mantra now goes something like, “First they came for the homeless, and I did not speak out, for I was not yet homeless.”

Missoula’s modern authorities seem just as eager to exact military force on the underclasses as the Copper Barons of yesteryear were, as became apparent by the strike teams armed with assault rifles near the Reserve Street Tent City last summer, where reporters were told to “Get back!” and “Keep moving!” It’s nice to see Missoula has graduated from unconstitutionally criminalizing homelessness with zero tolerance bans on sitting, lying or sleeping in public, to simply rounding up homeless individuals and placing them in a euphemistically named “Authorized Camp.” 

This sign appears unironically on the chain link fences of the “Authorized Camp.”

But with economic uncertainty approaching an all-time high, more and more families have stepped into the shoes of the so-called “vulnerable population”. Prior to the 2020 global shutdown it was already the case that 70% of Americans were just one paycheck away from joining the homeless population, which stood at more than half-a-million strong in the U.S. It is disconcerting to imagine that your neighbor could only be a mistake or two away from ending up fecalboarded in this concentration camp, and that it could all start with an act as innocuous as pinching a loaf of bread to feed the family. The fruitful harvest of late-stage capitalism’s dog-eat-dog game of musical-chair economics.

And as for the location of said Camp, Missoula’s leadership have chosen a parking lot under a cell tower, outlined in chain-link, surrounded by sewage and guarded under the watchful browneye of private security agents armed with guns and live ammunition. The City could have chosen any number of better spots for this space, but instead chose to further embarrass an already disgraced municipality with a situation for which no other phrase but “Concentration Camp” feels adequately honest.

So consider it during your next morning constitutional; consider how such well-meaning endeavors as the United States Constitution and the City of Missoula’s 10-Year-Plan-To-End-Homelessness led us to this moment. Remember that a tiny portion of our bowels’ contribution to the movement could literally end up in the lungs of the destitute; that this is the product delivered in place of the high and beautiful wave of reform we ordered.

So now, just over ten years into the 10-year plan, with your bran muffin soaking up the coffee you downed at breakfast, let the morning sun shine on your face and exposed thighs. And remember that with the right kind of nose you can almost smell the low water mark, the spot where the wave of civic enthusiasm finally broke, and flushed away.

Why is Mayor Engen Replacing Missoula Police with Private Security?

Very little happens in the dead of a frigid winter night in Missoula, Montana. The roads are empty. The stores have closed. The atmosphere is still. The town sleeps. It is not unusual for the peace to broken by dancing shadows which announce the approach of headlights followed soon by the crunching and popping of tires rolling against the icy pathway. But on this early morning, the headlights do herald the approach of something unusual. 

A Jeep Cherokee appears, inching its way down the narrow alley. The creeping vehicle soon reappears on the neighboring street, then passes slowly through the alley again. Though puttering along repeatedly through the same streets and alleys at a half-a-mile-per-hour, this driver is not lost. The suspicious activity continues into the next day and following night, and neighbors begin to take notice. But no one in the neighborhood seems to know who these people are or what they might want.

In December the first pictures of the suspicious vehicle emerge. The pictures shared by area residents show a Jeep with Lithia dealership plates. The vehicle haunting the West side alleys is also identified by small but distinct decals reading, “Rogers International: true risk based security solutions”.

While Missoula’s North side stands as one of the area’s last remaining working-class enclaves, that doesn’t necessarily mean the neighborhoods are the crime-ridden, uninhabitable, no-go zones some might have you believe they are. But that’s exactly how they’re described by David Pritchard, President of security firm Rogers International PLLC, in a recent piece by NBC Montana

“I would say definitely if anyone was to drive by that area and look at it, you know, it’s quite a bit different than it was three to four months ago.” ~David Pritchard

David Pritchard doesn’t live in these neighborhoods, but he is right about the situation being “quite a bit different than it was.” Because upon his company’s contract with the City of Missoula, anonymous vehicles began stalking through the residential alleyways of Missoula’s West side and Franklin-to-the-Fort neighborhoods.

According to their website, Rogers International is a private security company that claims to be based in Missoula, Montana. A quick google search places their offices at 1211 South Reserve in Missoula’s Montgomery Building, but a visit to this address reveals that Rogers’ offices do not exist there, even though that’s how it is currently registered with the Montana Secretary of State. The plot thickens.

According to public records, Rogers International was formed on 18 March 2020 and were contracted by the City in the autumn of 2021 for $670,000 to conduct their patented “risk-based security solutions” at a growing list of Missoula locations, starting with our most prominent homeless facilities. 

According to NBC Montana, “The Rogers contract with Missoula is capped this year at $670,000, the money from federal COVID-19 relief funds.” As the dust of the Corona Crisis hysteria settles, it seems the federal funds allocated for replenishing an economy damaged by lockdowns have been spent on a private police force. But even though Rogers is paid by public institutions with funds from the American Rescue Plan, this arrangement somehow got framed as “privately funded” last month on KGVO:

“KGVO News reached out to Jesse Jeager, Director of Development and Advocacy for the Poverello Center for an update on the two facilities as the weather takes a turn for the worse this week. … Jeager did not comment on the security at the Johnson Street facility due to the fact that security is privately funded by the City of Missoula.” 

A cynical observer could be forgiven for thinking that the City of Missoula and their new private police force have perhaps seen too many superhero movies. It’s almost certainly the case for David Grossman of Killology Research Group, who was recently hired by the City to deliver his crazy-eyed sermons to local cops where he raves about how killing humans on the job invariably results in, “they all say, ‘the best sex I’ve had in months.’ Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex. There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax and enjoy it, ah?”

Grossman goes on to say, “We are at war and you are the front line troops in this war. … So you do this. On your way home tonight, park your vehicle on the overpass for just a minute. Step out of your vehicle for just a minute. Look out on your city. Look at your citizens going about their lives, and know deep in your gut that today, at the risk of your life, you made their world a better place. Whether they know it or not. Then walk up to that bridge rail, put your hands on that rail, look out on your city, and let your cape blow in the wind.”

Since Missoula’s liberal leaders aren’t bashful about bringing Killology’s habit-forming violence fetishes to a police force near us, one must wonder about the intentions of beefing up the local garrison with private gunslingers who are even less accountable than the police. A whole private industry has sprung up right under our noses, where a group of armed vigilantes vow to solve the “risk based” problems of our fair city through means apparently unavailable to the police.

One Rogers International employee said his company was contracted because local police lack the resources to perform the job. “We are more of a deterrent force,” he said. “Because at this point, the homeless population do know that we are here. We are taking steps to prevent criminal activity in certain areas.”

What does it say about Missoula that homeless and low-income people are considered “suspicious” and stigmatized automatically in association with criminal activity? And by patrolling for “the homeless,” does Rogers International mean to imply that lower income neighborhoods are more susceptible to crime? Because that accusation made Councilwoman Heidi West publicly cry bitter tears of resentment two years ago at the 16 December 2019 City Council meeting: 

“I think it’s entirely unfair to say that, people that live in low income neighborhoods, sorry, love where they live less. … It was a very hurtful and classist thing to say. And I think that we all value where we live and some of us have less resources to defend that space.”

It is worth noting that no such accusation was actually made for Councilwoman West to tearfully respond to. Her weepy proclamation that “we all value where we live” was, in fact, made in response to the pleas of hundreds of Missoula’s working people begging the City Council not to gentrify yet another working-class neighborhood. However, the specter of classism was thought to be so persuasive that Councilwoman West fabricated the accusation out of whole cloth in order to distract from the effects of her own votes, which are partially responsible for the homeless crisis the city is now hiring mercenaries to “solve”. 

These kinds of Public-Private Partnerships often result in even less transparency for we the public. Why couldn’t that $670,000 be used to employ more police officers? Is this Missoula’s careful version of “defund the police”? 

Mayor John Engen tells us his reasons for stepping up Missoula’s show of private force:

“We also have armed security here at City Hall now, um, and as much as I regret to say it, it’s kind of the nature of the world these days.”

John must of course forgive the confusion of his citizens who observe that the City Hall building is in fact Missoula’s Police headquarters. Are we meant to understand that the Missoula Police are incapable of managing the security of their own building? Do the police themselves somehow require protection from the citizens they protect and serve? What resources and armaments do City Hall’s private security guards have access to that the police are restricted from employing? Have the causes of the nationwide labor shortage also disgruntled police officers to the point that they just aren’t interested in the work anymore? More to the point: why this rapidly expanding plethora of private security firms?

Rogers International are the third such firm currently employed by Missoula’s paranoid leaders. As Martin “Gomer” Kidston reported for the Missoula Current in November of 2020:

“Missoula County will start by moving from Black Knight Security and Investigation to a new contract with Phoenix Protective Corp. out of Spokane in an effort to tighten access to the downtown courthouse and improve customer service.”

How do Missoula’s police officers feel about this? 

Contacts within Missoula’s Police Department confirm that Rogers International has made itself quite unpopular with law enforcement. According to anonymous police sources, RI security agents follow “suspicious” pedestrians around town in their vehicles and incessantly call MPD whenever said pedestrians sit down somewhere. If a homeless individual wanders too far from the stables, a Rogers Rent-A-Cop will promptly alert law enforcement officers to roundup strays back into the corral. But this boy-who-cried-wolf mentality has annoyed MPD officers and contributed to an atmosphere of professional animosity.

And the occupational hostilities don’t end there. An open letter from the Poverello Center’s Executive Director, Jill Bonny, reveals that the staff at Montana’s largest homeless shelter aren’t too thrilled about this arrangement either. She writes, “Recently, the City of Missoula signed a contract with Roger’s International to provide security to the Cedar St/Hawthorne and Johnson/North Ave neighborhoods. Like you, we have mixed feelings about this. … This is not a company that the Poverello Center has hired, and we do not get to control the contract.”

Speaking of who gets to control the contract, just how much are these companies capable of doing? Exactly what kinds of operations are Rogers presently involved with here in Missoula? 

The “What We Do” tab on Rogers’ site declares that their company believes in presenting their clients with “specifically tailored services” which include private investigations, technical surveillance, camera installation, drone security services, threat assessment, threat mitigation, threat management plans, crime prevention, firearms training, “and much more…” 

What exactly makes them “international” remains to be seen. But RI patrol areas don’t seem limited to shelters or their immediate surroundings because Rogers aren’t guarding the homeless shelters per se. They’re patrolling the neighborhoods surrounding those shelters, and have begun pushing out into the rest of the city, placing an ever widening scope of Missoula’s street grid under the management of this private security firm. Even the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) now contracts with Rogers International. The patrol maps recently released in local media show us how a single contract can place a massive area under private patrol.

To ask whether Rogers were contracted with public money to conduct surveillance on private citizens seems redundant since conspicuous surveillance of citizens seems to be the task they were explicitly hired to execute—just as long as said surveillance pertains only to homeless citizens who can’t afford attorneys to defend their rights. Where those operations end and unlawful surveillance begins, on the other hand, could be anyone’s guess. Missoula Mayor John Engen certainly has a well-established reputation for publicly destroying his political opponents and retaliating against his critics. It is surely a coincidence that Rogers personnel began appearing in the neighborhoods and rear-view mirrors of several prominent journalists when these contracted patrol routes officially began in October of 2021.

But suppose there is an incident at the Poverello where a Rogers guard employs the use of lethal force. Who takes legal responsibility in such a scenario? Is the City liable, or is Rogers? It already seems the case that Poverello guests can be murdered with such impunity that grieving family members can’t even get suitable legal representation because there’s no money at that end of that rainbow. Private enforcers are, by definition, less accountable than police and the expanding multitude of different security firms complicates who ultimately accepts responsibility for the liability hot potato.

“It’s only a matter of time before somebody gets shot,” said a Riverside Pawn employee to local activist Travis Mateer. This statement was uttered in response to observing armed Rogers agents on a foot pursuit of a homeless man beneath the Reserve Street Bridge. An advantage of hiring private contractors is that they’re under absolutely no obligation to obey the Constitution, nor are they required to respect your civil rights.

And while Rogers’ employees might be quick to dodge questions pertaining to their use of force, David Pritchard provides an unvarnished truth regarding their lethal capabilities while on patrol: 

“To me it’s more important for me as a business owner at the end of the day that my guys get home safe, um, you know, than the other way around. You can’t put a price tag on somebody’s life.”

Perhaps it is outside the purview of Rogers‘ contract to place a price on human life, but the practice is routine in certain industries, as could be described to you by any insurance adjuster, personal injury lawyer, or as seen in the $39,000 cash incentives related to involuntary intubation of hospital patients throughout 2020. But I digress.

According to KECI, the City’s contract with Rogers stipulates they are not allowed to carry firearms into the Poverello Center. But David Pritchard makes it clear that, in fact, they are allowed to carry firearms into the Poverello—as long as there’s a “reason” for doing so. 

“The Poverello has told us we’re more than welcome to come into the building. If there’s not a direct reason behind it, the firearm is not to come in with us.” David goes on to say, “Then you know, that’s kind of the, get in, do what you need to do, and get out as quick as possible.” 

When it comes to the business of patrolling peaceful neighborhoods, many of Pritchard’s statements smack of an occupying force in a conflict zone. Get in, do what needs to be done, and get my people home safe. If Missoula were to be considered a conflict zone, that might distinguish Rogers International from private security, placing them more definitively as a mercenary outfit, since a mercenary is “an armed civilian paid to perform military operations in a conflict zone.” 

Whether Rogers International qualifies as a paramilitary force is currently an open question, but in a truly surreal twist, Pritchard goes on to mention the Fort Hood shooting during his interview with NBC Montana. It is difficult to guess what Pritchard meant to imply by invoking the mass murder of 13 individuals by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan. Perhaps attempting to reassure the interviewer and their audience about the mental stability of his armed enforcers, his reminder that catastrophic violence can come from the most unexpected sources stands as cold comfort for the citizens of Missoula who see their publicly-funded and accountable police being gradually supplanted by a private occupying force whose training, accountability, and mental stability could be as lacking as their transparency.

NorthWestern Energy Poisoning Homes, Violating Montanans’ Rights

If someone were going to install a cell tower in your living room, wouldn’t you expect them to at least tell you first? What if tens-of-thousands of such transmitters suddenly blanketed your neighborhood in measurable electrosmog? The industry assures us these things are safe, at least in press releases, just as all toxic industries always have done, from tobacco to DDT to Roundup and Zantac and beyond. The industry doesn’t have to prove their products are safe. Instead, the onus lies on the consumer to prove that they’re dangerous. But placing the profit cart before the health horse like this too often results in tragedies that are completely preventable, like various forms of cancer directly linked to EMF exposure. But are we too addicted to the convenience of our toxic tech to hear the familiar warnings from society’s truth tellers?

NorthWestern Energy contractors are making the rounds in a community near you, switching off your power to install harmful technologies onto your home that cannot be switched off. And they’re not even telling residents this change is occurring, instead choosing to gift us with surprise power outs, increasing energy rates, spontaneously burning buildings and EMF radiation. Even if you don’t yet find yourself among the growing population of electrohypersensitive individuals, these technologies are provably toxic to biological life.

These so-called “smart” meters emit a radiation that, when combined with dozens of cell towers and thousands of wifi routers, exposes us to a wide spectrum of radiation responsible for many health problems. It’s not a coincidence that so many young YouTubers receive terminal diagnoses for brain cancer, or that the instances of diabetes increase exponentially with proximity to cell towers. Last year, more than 240 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for stronger exposure limits due to known health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

If you’re concerned about these technologies being slapped onto your home, call this 800 number to get the ball rolling on an uninstall

Article IX, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution declares, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

Untested wireless technologies contested as extremely dangerous to human health by countless medical and scientific professionals the world over, installed onto our homes without our knowledge or consent, seems to be a direct violation of Montanan’s rights as specified by Article IX.

If we have a right to a clean and healthful environment then we shouldn’t be guinea-pigged into experiments involving a technology associated with irreversible negative health consequences. It should be studied by independent third parties and we should be able to make informed decisions about our exposure.

The future looks bright for NWE’s shareholders

Maybe NWE shouldn’t be installing this stuff on people’s homes without telling them, or without informing them of the well-documented adverse health effects associated.

These meters aren’t even in the best interests of NWE. Those employed as “meter checkers” will soon find themselves in the unemployment line. Worse still, NorthWestern’s executives could end up facing the same kinds of criminal charges and lawsuits that blackened PG&E’s skies after smart meters began causing houses to catch fire. When these “state of the art” devices are slapped onto buildings with old electrical systems, the fragile wires often catch fire, reducing family homes to smoldering rubble.

Jeromy Johnson was a technology enthusiast with a masters degree in engineering who worked in Silicon Valley for many years until he eventually developed electrohypersensitivity from his overexposure to EMF radiation fields. The exposure resulted in symptomatic headaches, ringing in the ears, disorientation, insomnia, fatigue and brain fog, in-turn changing his life forever.

In his TED Talk, Johnson eloquently illustrates how we can no longer trust the Industry’s claims regarding the “safety” of their toxic products.

Transcript of Jeromy’s talk:

I’d like to begin by asking a few questions.

Who knows if they have a wireless smart meter on their home? And who has their smartphone in their pocket right now? And who’s read the fine prints in your owner’s manual that says that the smartphone should never be within about an inch of the body?

I’m going to speak to why we can no longer assume that our wireless technology is safe. Technology has allowed us many benefits. It has connected us to people and to places and it has brought us convenience that few could have imagined just 10 years ago. It’s also brought us tremendous economic benefits. If we can look at how technology has increased in our lives in just the last eight years it started with the iPhone, and then tablet computing, ubiquitous Wi-Fi, the smart meter and the smart home and wearable tech, and now the Internet of Things.

If we could imagine how this would look, it would actually look like this — this is an artist’s rendition of what Wi-Fi in our public spaces looks like.

We could actually hear what microwave radiation sounds like with a device like this. So if anybody would like to hear what their smartphone or their smartwatch sounds like, come and see me at the end and I can show you.

But how does this affect our bodies?

That’s the question I want to ask because this exponential rise in microwave radiation can have effects. And that’s what scientists and medical doctors around the world are now saying, especially when it comes to children, because they’re going to be affected by this their entire lives. But today I also want to share a few solutions. I want to give everyone here things that you can do in your own lives in order to reduce this type of exposure.

So I actually got into this topic about five years ago. Before then I was a young technology enthusiast. I always used my smartphone and Wi-Fi. I’ve worked in Silicon Valley and have a master’s degree in engineering.

So if anyone had told me that wireless technology could have health effects I would have thought they’re crazy. So if you’re thinking that right now, I can relate. But this all changed for me over the period of about one week. I started to experience headaches, ringing in the ears, insomnia, and a fatigue and brain fog that I’d never experienced before.

And I shared this with a colleague at work. And she said the exact same thing happened to her husband when a wireless smart meter was installed in their home. So I went home that evening and I checked downstairs. And sure enough, we had a bank of wireless smart meters installed right below our bedroom in San Francisco.


So this started me on a journey to learn as much about this topic as I possibly could. I now have a website about this and I’m contacted by people all around the world every day who are experiencing the exact same things. It can be when they have a wireless smart meter installed, or a new Wi-Fi router, or even a cell tower placed across the street from their home. These are the common symptoms that people start to experience. This is actually from a published paper on the health effects of wireless smart meters.

Just here in the Bay Area, I’m in touch with dozens of people who’ve had their lives changed by this: medical doctors, high school principals, teachers and students, IT professionals, and even entrepreneurs. These are people who had a normal life and then over a short period of time went to where they could no longer work; where they could no longer go to an office. Some of them actually have had to move out of their homes because they can’t be in an environment which is normal now for most people. I’ve been in touch with people around the world who’ve become homeless because of this. There are many people that’s actually happened to.

And unfortunately, I know of people who’ve actually taken their lives because there’s essentially no place they can go. And this is something that society does not yet recognize.

My own life has been tremendously changed by this. After that first exposure to wireless smart meters, now I can no longer be in an environment with strong Wi-Fi for very long. So I can’t go to my work the way I used to be able to. Most environments are now essentially toxic to me. So even finding a safe place to live has become very difficult. Imagine not being able to live in an apartment building where everyone has Wi-Fi, or to be able to live next to a cell tower.

This is actually a proposed cell tower here in Berkeley. The residents have actually stopped it for now, but most churches and most schools now have cell towers on them. And so it exposes the people around them and of course the students who go to those schools.


This is a cell tower in San Francisco: that brown thimble on top of the telephone pole is a cell tower. And these are being placed every couple of blocks. So you could have an amazing home, and then one week a company can come and put a cell tower right outside your window.


So this is something that’s happening throughout the Bay Area and it’s going to be happening throughout the United States. So it makes it so that people like myself have a hard time finding a place to live, but it also is ratcheting up the exposure of the entire population.

So you might be asking, ‘perhaps some people are being injured by this, but if you’re not feeling it, it’s probably not that big of a deal’. And I think that’s a very common experience.

But it’s not as simple as saying that just a few unfortunate people are being affected by this. Because what the science shows is that we’re all affected on some level whether we can feel it or not. And the reason is because essentially, our bodies are electric. Every cell in our body communicates using tiny electric signals. It’s how our nervous system operates. So to think that we could put an exponential amount of microwave radiation into our environment and not feel effects is simply false.

To illustrate this I actually had many friends come to me when I started to experience this and they would say, “Jeromy, are you sure you aren’t making this up in your head?” And I thought this too myself. At the beginning.

But then, a year or two later, they would come to me and they’d say, “You won’t believe it, but now I’m feeling pain in my arm when I use my cell phone,” or “when I put it to the head,” or “when a new Wi-Fi router is installed.” So this is something where when people have more of an exposure, more people are being affected. And it’s not just headaches and insomnia. It’s much more serious things such as infertility, DNA damage, and eventually cancer. This is what the research is starting to show.


Isn’t this regulated? And this is one of the most interesting things I’ve found. The Federal Communications Commission is who is supposed to be regulating wireless technology, but if you look at the regulations they’re almost 20 years old. So that means our most advanced technology is using science that’s at least 20 years old.

But not only that, they’re based on a concept which is nearly 50 years old which says “if microwave radiation does not heat us, then it can’t possibly hurt us”. But there are now hundreds of studies that show that this is false.

So how is it that we have a regulatory body that’s not protecting the public? Like many public health issues in our country you end up having industry influencing the regulatory body. And that’s what’s happening here. So you have a revolving door between the wireless lobby and the FCC Commission. That’s what’s happening.

Plus, the science is heavily influenced by industry funding. This is a study by Dr. Henry Lai. He looked at 326 studies based on the biological effects of cell phone radiation. He found that about half of the studies showed effects and half didn’t. That’s pretty normal for this type of research. But what he found that was interesting was that if you looked at who funded the studies, 70% of the independent studies showed effects, and only 32% of the industry-funded studies showed effects.

So you see that there’s an influence in money on this topic, just like many other topics. Tobacco is another one where essentially the industry funded science that was going to show their products were safe. So, that’s the bad news.

Now I want to share some good news, and that is that there are solutions for this. We are going to have to have the industry start to create safer products, but there are ways that we can both protect ourselves and move industry forward. So one of the primary things we can do is to move towards fiber optics because this is a way that we can make our homes safer; our businesses and our schools. Fiber optics are safe, they’re secure, and they’re one of the fastest things we can use.

Another way we can go is to design products which are safer. So currently we have product designers and engineers working together, but we could bring in biophysicists and biologists to work together to create products that don’t just emit right underneath the FCC regulations, but emit the least amount of any type of electromagnetic fields as possible.

If smart meters had been designed to use either fiber optics or to emit just once or twice a day rather than the 10,000 times they do emit, then I wouldn’t be standing here today, and thousands upon thousands of people around the world would not have been injured by smart meters.

So what are some things that all of us can do? This is one of the most important things because everyone wants to know how to essentially protect themselves and their families. The first thing is to make sure we use our cell phones wisely. I mentioned that you don’t want to put the cell phone within about an inch of the body. The industry is telling us this now. So make sure you use speakerphone, get an air-tube headset; and when it’s on the body, make sure that you put it on airplane mode when it’s either in the pocket or sometimes in the bra. And when it comes to kids, we don’t want to have kids use cell phones. But if they must, then please teach them how use these wisely.

We can wire our homes. Most people don’t need Wi-Fi in their home. So move towards Ethernet; move towards fiber optics. And if you must have Wi-Fi, make sure you turn it off at night. You can get a simple timer so you don’t even have to think about it.

When it comes to kids, we want to reduce their exposures as much as possible. So if they use an iPad, put all of the data on the iPad and then turn the Wi-Fi off. In schools, I simply do not think we need to have Wi-Fi in schools because we’re filling those classroom with microwave radiation. We can have amazing technology, but it can be wired. And this is where I think we’re going to have to go.

When it comes to the smart meter and the smart home I recommend you to opt out. I’ve had wealthy early-adopting families contact me who went all-in on the smart home, and they ended up getting sick within a few months. So this is something that affects families. And I just recommend that you don’t go down this path because it’s a technology we do not need.

And one of the last solutions I want to get today is to create a safe place to sleep. Because this is one of the most important things. Because this is when your body rejuvenates. And it’s when you can make sure that everything’s off. So turn off all your wireless devices; unplug things. If you have a baby monitor I actually recommend that you turn that off, especially at night. I just do not recommend those for kids. And if you do these things, I know many people who’ve ended up sleeping better. They are much clearer during the day and their fatigue is much less. So this is something which I recommend everyone can do.

So in conclusion I want to say that this is a problem that we can solve. There’s tremendous people around the world working on this right now. And I believe we’re coming to a tipping point where enough people realize that this is an important topic and that there are solutions. So I recommend that you share this with the people who are closest to you. Because if enough people wake up to this issue then industry will start creating safe technology. And once they do that our entire society can move towards a healthier future.


Only The Illiterate Trust Big Pharma

Did you know that more than 20 countries, including most of Europe, suspended the rollout of the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine due to thousands of fatal blood clots? Are you aware that the US Government’s official reporting system admits to more than 4,057 deaths and 118,902 adverse reactions directly associated with the experimental “vaccines”? Did you know that Europe has thus far reported 10,570 deaths and 405,259 injuries sustained from the jab? Did you know that many vaccinated people continue to test positive for the virus? Did you know that the Oxford AstraZeneca jab was developed with help from English eugenicists at the Galton Institute (formerly the UK Eugenics Society) and EngenderHealth (formerly the Sterilization League For Human Betterment)? Are you aware that more than 100,000 Doctors & Medical Professionals openly oppose the covid-19 vaccine? Have you noticed how Pfizer’s claim that their vaccine is 95% effective conceals the fact that said efficacy pertains to 1.23% of applicable test subjects during phase 3 trials? And did you know that Pharma conducted exactly zero safety studies regarding any of these jabs, and enjoys complete and total legal immunity from all litigation related to adverse effects that result from the ensuing experiment?

We all know many people who’ve been injected. Unfortunately, in many cases they’ve done so without studying the science in depth, reading any of Pfizer’s internal documents, carefully weighing potential benefits against known risks, or comparing alternatives in deciding whether this treatment was even necessary or right for them.

Quite the contrary.
It seems that the injection followed the influence of peer pressure, propaganda, and fear.

Because none of my “vaccinated” colleagues ever familiarized themselves with any of the animal studies (J&J; Oxford /AstraZeneca; Moderna mouse; Moderna primate; Pfizer mouse; Pfizer primate) that consistently resulted in hepatitis-induced liver damage, pulmonary immunopathology (severe inflammation of the lungs), Antibody Dependent Enhancement, and death.

None of my “vaccinated” friends seemed to notice when the CDC acknowledged the deaths of 4,863 Americans as a direct result of these experimental jabs (as of 30 May). It follows that few, if any, of my “vaccinated” acquaintances seem to think that Big Pharma might be up to their same old tricks, or that Pharma’s uniquely corrupt history of lawsuits and scandals represents the most infamous example of corporations gone wild.

It is not an “opinion” that Pfizer was charged $2.3 billion in the (then) largest healthcare fraud settlement in history to resolve criminal liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products in 2009. Pfizer plead guilty for misbranding Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled in 2005, with the intent to defraud or mislead. Pfizer agreed to pay an additional $1 billion to resolve allegations that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon; Zyvox, and Lyrica, and submitted false claims to government health care programs. Somehow they’re still allowed to continue doing business, unmolested by regulatory agencies. And somehow, a huge swath of the population seems blissfully unaware that Pfizer might even have a plan to profit handsomely from annual corona shots for years and decades to come.

As Stephen Goldfinger, chairman of the American Psychological Associations’s Committee on Commercial Support, once put it, “The pharmaceutical companies are an amoral bunch. They’re not a benevolent association. So they are highly unlikely to donate large amounts of money without strings attached. Once one is dancing with the devil, you don’t always get to call the steps of the dance.”

Martha Rosenberg’s recent Counterpunch piece titled, Pharma is willing to look “unscientific” to sell vaccines expands on this grim reality:

Pharma knows best” rings false with a quick look at withdrawn drugs like Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Meridia, Darvon, Phen-Fen, Raxar and Seldane–all called safe when they were making millions…. Neither mainstream or progressive news sites want to acknowledge the existence of the federal National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which, since 1988, has settled more than 16,000 claims and awarded $3.18 billion in injury settlements. … Mainstream scientists are the ones who are “unscientific.” The truth is not all vaccines are safe, life-saving or necessary and conflicts of interest do exist.

Even when corrupt officials have literally gone to jail, their “science” remains politely accepted by mainstream science. Scott Reuben published fraudulent research on Lyrica, Effexor, Celebrex and other drugs for Pharma. He went to prison for six months but the “science” behind the drugs he promoted stands. Richard Borison, former psychiatry chief at Augusta Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center and Medical College of Georgia, went to prison for 15 years for using clinical trials on veterans of the antipsychotic Seroquel to line his own pockets. The drug went on to earn billions and his for-profit “research” still stands.”

In September Forbes revealed that vaccine trials were rigged to succeed by deliberately testing for the wrong things:

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance. It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.”

Former Editor-In-Chief of the New England Journal Of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, was one of Time’s 25 most influential Americans in 1997, and won the George Polk Award for magazine reporting in 2002. Her 2009 review, Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption,” included a sobering statement regarding so-called “clinical research”:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Angell’s position at the NEJM provided a front-row seat to the growing corruption of the pharmaceutical industry and provided all the evidence she needed for her 2004 book, The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It, which further corroborates the rigging of clinical tests to favor the industry:

“Researchers don’t control clinical trials anymore; sponsors do. … The doctors are not themselves trained researchers, so they simply do what they are told—or risk losing their lucrative deals with the contractors. The contract research organizations, in turn, answer only to big pharma. That means the drug companies have nearly total control over these trials. As a result, drug companies now design clinical trials to be carried out by researchers who are little more than hired hands—whether the trials are in academic centers or in physicians’ offices. … Not surprisingly, bias is now rampant in drug trials. A recent survey found that industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be favorable to the company’s product as NIH-sponsored research. That is in accord with a large body of evidence showing that researchers with industry connections are far more likely to favor company products. In the case of calcium channel blockers like Norvasc, for instance, one survey of seventy articles about their safety found that 96 percent of authors who were supportive of the drugs had financial ties to the companies that made them, whereas only 37 percent of authors who were critical had such ties.” (Angell, 107)


As reported by the Montana Free Press this March, “At least four people have died at a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility in Livingston that started after most residents had received at least the first dose of the vaccine.”

A similar scenario continues repeating countless times around the world in 2021.

Bill Maher and 8 New York Yankees tested positive for covid despite being “fully vaccinated”. More than 12,400 Israeli residents tested positive after vaccination. In Ireland nine nursing home residents died of COVID despite being mRNA “vaccinated”. Dozens of Floridians contracted the illness after being fully vaccinated from it. Another four people in Oregon tested positive after receiving both doses. More than 140 people in Houston tested positive following the jab. In March a new outbreak occurred at the Cottonwoods Care Centre of British Columbia after it was confirmed that 82 percent of their residents had been vaccinated as of February. By mid April the CDC finally had to admit to 5,800 vaccinated people becoming infected, 74 of whom have died so far. A nursing home in Auburn, New York reported zero Coronavirus deaths until vaccinations killed 24 residents in under two weeks. Finally, 2 nuns died at a monastery this February following their experimental mRNA shots, with 28 of the total 35 nuns testing “positive.”

America’s Frontline Doctors published a video by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, who analyzed the VAERS database, concluding that, “vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological adverse effects.” According to Dr. Rose, 6% of all the breakthrough cases have resulted in death, “breakthrough” meaning people who get infected after being fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection. This seems ironic given that people are taking these jabs in the pursuit of preventing death. According to Newsweek, the CDC now admits to over 10,000 breakthrough infections as of 30 April 2021.

Fully vaccinated” people testing positive begs the question, How do benefits of this experimental protocol outweigh the risks?

From Wired:

The problem is, a Covid-19 vaccine that only prevents illness—which is to say, symptoms—might not prevent infection with the virus or transmission of it to other people. Worst case, a vaccinated person could still be an asymptomatic carrier.”

It should also point, at least partially, to the high rate of failure associated with covid testing apparatuses, which emerged as a stubborn problem from the first day of the 2020 global panic.

Firstly, to say that someone or something “tested positive for covid” is not only medically dishonest, but also grammatically meaningless, due to the dysmal track record of a faulty testing apparatus that was never designed as a diagnostic tool (as espoused by it’s inventor, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for creating Polymerase Chain Reaction technology and died suddenly right before the pandemic broke out). PCR tests are scientifically meaningless because the technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections. PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive viral particles, and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. Thus “covid” becomes the umbrella label for PCR “positive” regardless of clinical presentation. It’s all theater based on computer models and appeal to authority.

NPR outlined the PCR’s false positives in June of 2020, admitting the FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges false positives (as does the CDC fact sheet). This is why Coca Cola Tested Positive In Austrian Parliament, why Erykah Badu’s covid tests came up positive in the left nostril, negative in the right (as did Elon Musk’s), and why courts in Austria, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands have ruled that PCR tests are not suitable for COVID-19 diagnosis. Tanzanian President John Magufuli proved that a pawpaw fruit can come back positive on a PCR test. Even the WHO finally admitted that PCR tests are virtually meaningless.

Next, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA jabs are not, by legal definition, “vaccines” at all. Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout details exactly why it’s so problematic to refer to these experimental jabs as “vaccines”:

Many of the pharmaceutical companies researching potential coronavirus vaccines are using old methods. They take a proverbial pinch of the virus and infect your immune system at a very low and slow rate, allowing your body the time it needs to build up a natural immunological resistance to the illness. But developing those types of vaccines is a slow and arduous process, and the pharmaceutical companies using a radical new method that has never been tried before.

A vaccine provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything, nor does it protect others from transmission. In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Doctors Rubin and Longo both conclude:

No existing vaccines have been shown to be effective against infection with any betacoronavirus, the family that includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19.”

Other high priests of “science” have also confessed that it doesn’t prevent you spreading the virus. As further evidenced by the 246 fully vaccinated Michiganders who contracted COVID, the effect of any of the covid vaccines on disease transmission seems a known unknown. We’re now learning that those who took the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are 8 times more likely to contract the new South African variant of COVID-19 than the unvaccinated, according to Mathew Maavac at Activist Post:

Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale University, has estimated that over 60 percent of all new COVID-19 cases seem to occur among the “vaccinated.”

This March Reuters likewise acknowledged that rushed vaccines pose a serious risk of “immune enhancement,” whereby people who get the vaccine can actually get a worse reaction to the virus.

None of this comes as much of a surprise to those paying close attention, as the industry never claimed their jabs would protect anyone from the virus. In fact, Moderna describes the technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine. Likewise, Pfizer’s medical literature refers to it as patented “Genetic Chemotherapy” for cancer treatment that does not result in immunity from coronaviruses.


Canadian entrepreneur and activist Sadaf Gilani published a risk-benefit analysis of synthetic mRNA covid vaccines that clearly explains the mechanisms of mRNA technology to the layperson:

Both thePfizer/BioNtech as well as the Moderna injection employ the same technology: synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history. Medications are given to sick people to treat disease. Vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent an infection. Therefore consideration of risk-benefit analysis is paramount. … The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.”

The piece quotes a staff writer for Forbes who warned in a video last March that, “They are going to hack the cells in your body in order to make them into drug factories.” Indeed, Pfizer’s own studies confirm the creation of said “drug factories” may threaten to expose unvaccinated people through a phenomenon now colloquially referred to as “shedding”. And as the Montana Daily Gazette reported this April, there is already precedent of this occurring with unvaccinated women reporting miscarriages and painful, irregular menstrual cycles following interactions with vaccinated people.

He continues:

The fact that mRNA technologies alter the function of your DNA in your body has made many people suspicious of what unexpected horrors could arise through mass use of this experimental protocol. … Because this vaccine protects individuals in their response, there is no good reason why everybody in our society should be forced to take it. It is used to increase specific protein production in someone who’s at severe risk—that’s how a medicine works normally. You don’t take HIV medication if you don’t have HIV. You shouldn’t be taking cancer drugs unless you have cancer. And you shouldn’t need to change your DNA’s production of specific proteins unless it’s personally necessary to do so.”

This all corroborates what Dr. David Martin has emphasized for over a year: that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine, that the trials do not test for reduction in transmission, and that these therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction of one or more symptoms.


The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people, half of whom received placebo and half of whom were jabbed; of the 170 who became ‘infected with Covid,’ 162 of them were in the placebo group; only 8 were vaccinated. The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 154 cases of Covid19…or 95%. You don’t need to be an epidemiologist to understand the fatal flaw in this reasoning. The entire trial of 44,000 people is deemed a success based on the potentially multi-variant outcome from less than 4% of those involved.

Moderna makes a similar claim about their experimental mRNA jab, touting 94% efficacy. But when it comes to drug advertising, the word “effective” does not mean what you think it means: Based on the phase 3 trial data, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective, but only 1% of the time. In the same way, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective, but only 2% of the time.

Thomas Neuburger further explains this statistical fallacy with regards to Moderna’s trials:

In the Moderna vaccinated group, 11 people out of 15,000 got the virus for an overall infection rate of 0.07%. In the Moderna placebo group, 185 people of 15,000 got the virus, for an overall infection rate of 1.23%. And if you divide 0.07% by 1.23%, you get a 5.7% infection rate — or inversely, a 94% protection rate, which is what they’re claiming. But that’s a percentage of a percentage, a ratio of a ratio, something called the “relative rate” in the medical profession. What this really means is that, of the 1.23% of people who would have gotten the virus in the vaccinated group, 94% of them didn’t. But Moderna isn’t testing 30,000 people who are infected with the virus, or even 15,000 people. Only 185 people “got the virus” in the placebo group. That population was reduced to 11 people with vaccination. So the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective — but only 1.23% of the time.”

Dr. Angell revealed how routine this kind of statistical dishonesty is within the industry:

First, faux research yields a faux answer to a clinical question. Then faux education assures that doctors everywhere hear about it, so they can write millions of prescriptions based on the faux information. Bribes and kickbacks sometimes grease the skids. … I find it hard to imagine that a system this corrupt can be a good thing, or that it is worth the vast amounts of money spent on it. But in addition, we have to ask whether it really is a net benefit to the public to be taking so many drugs. Doctors have been taught only too well by the pharmaceutical industry, and what they have been taught is to reach for a prescription pad. Add to that the fact that most doctors are under great time pressure because of the demands of managed care, and they reach for that pad very quickly. Patients have also been well taught by the pharmaceutical industry’s advertising. They have been taught that if they don’t leave the doctor’s office with a prescription, the doctor is not doing a good job. The result is that too many people end up taking drugs when there may be better ways to deal with their problems.” (Angell, 169)


Dr. Angell describes Big Pharma as an industry perpetually inundated by a “tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits”:

“The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.” (Angell, 18)

Through Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government now offers Texas doctors double the normal reimbursement per vaccine for every experimental shot they administer. The shots are “free” to the patients. But these kinds of cash incentives are nothing new for the pharmaceutical industry. In July of 2020 the U.S. Justice Department announced a $678 million settlement with Novartis over improper inducements made to doctors. Novartis sales representative Oswald Bilotta became a whilstleblower in the case after wearing a wire to record evidence of doctors taking cash bribes from the Swiss pharmaceutical giant in exchange for prescribing their drugs. Bernstein market analyst Ronny Gal predicted covid “vaccine” sales would reach $40 billion this year.

Dr. Angell reminds us that Pharma has been bribing doctors for decades:

Gifts to doctors are often lavish. Doctors can pretty much count on being taken to dinner in fine restaurants whenever they want; there company-selected experts sometimes give talks. But there are also other expensive gifts. An editorial in USA Today painted a vivid but all too accurate picture: “Christmas trees. Free tickets to a Washington Redskins game, with a champagne reception thrown in. A family vacation in Hawaii. And wads of cash. Such gifts would trigger a big red ‘bribery’ alert in the mind of just about any public official or government contractor. But not, it seems, in the minds of many doctors. They have been raking in jaw-dropping gifts from pharmaceutical firms battling to give their products an edge in an increasingly competitive market.” (128)


According to the U.S. government, these experimental jabs thus far have killed more people than died in 9/11, and the anecdotal evidence continues to pile up into a statistically significant heap. As early as December 2020 the CDC was forced to respond to more than 3,000 negatively affected vaccine subjects. Then California halted Moderna vaccinations in January due to an “unusually high number” of adverse reactions.

Italian authorities launched a manslaughter investigation against AstraZeneca for their covid vaccine following the death of Sandro Tognatti, a 57-year-old music teacher from Biella, Italy. Tognatti died just hours after receiving the AstraZeneca jab on 14 March 2021. In an equally horrific example, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that 18-year-old Emma Burkey underwent three brain surgeries related to dangerous blood clots after receiving the Johnson & Johnson injection.

Norwegian medical professor Pål Andre Holme warned at a press conference in March that the AstraZeneca jab caused fatal blood clots after investigating the adverse reactions experienced by three fellow healthcare workers. That same month vaccine-related blood clots killed 9 in Germany, prompting the country to halt the rollout of the AstraZeneca experiment.

By April, Europe’s top pharmaceutical regulator finally acknowledged the link between rare blood clots and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, but only after Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Michael Kidd, acknowledged that there was, in fact, a connection. The United Kingdom joins other researchers throughout Europe who insist there is evidence that these shots cause fatal blood clots after acknowledging more than 2 dozen new cases of the rare clots with 9 proving fatal.

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended a halt of the AstraZeneca shots following concerns about blood clots and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia (VIPIT), citing 2,530 individual reports of adverse events following “vaccination,” including 24 deaths. By early April Georgia authorities suspended the J&J rollout after 8 people experienced adverse reactions. Soon thereafter, the FDA recommended J&J pause their experimental covid shot, “out of an abundance of caution.” In May, French doctor Gérard Delépine declared the evidence is overwhelming that deaths and infections have “exploded” since the rollout of experimental covid injections.

Even the NIH expressed that they were ‘very concerned’ about side effects in the vaccine trials. And it turns out that fatal blood clots are a problem across the board for all of these injections, including the mRNA shots pushed in the states. But it seems that no matter how much evidence mounts, the scientific truism that “correlation is not necessarily causation” will be inappropriately repeated by true believers and propagandists until the cows come home.

Nevertheless, tragic evidence continues to mount at a frightening rate:

  • Rap star DMX (Earl Simmons) died on 09 April 2021 of a fatal heart attack following his dose of the experimental jab, according to a family member, that has since been reported as an alleged “drug overdose”.
  • Rock and Roll legend Eric Clapton wrote in regret after his vaccination: “I suffer with peripheral neuropathy and should never have gone near the needle. But the propaganda said the vaccine was safe for everyone.”
  • Boxing Champion “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler died on 13 March 2021 following a nasty battle with “side effects” following his dose of the experimental covid “Vaccine”.
  • Bill Shakespeare, the first man in the UK to receive the experiment, died of ‘unrelated illness’ 5 months after receiving the Pfizer jab.
  • Israeli fashion icon Alber Elbazdied on 24 April 2021 at the age of 59 after getting “fully vaccinated” for covid.
  • Baseball legend Hank Aaron received an experimental Moderna mRNA injection 2 weeks before his death at the age of 86.
  • MSNBC’s Legal Analyst, 47-year-old Midwin Charles, was announced dead on 06 April 2021, thirty-seven days after receiving an experimental mRNA shot for covid.
  • Dr. Thomas Flanigan was a 48-Year-Old plastic surgeon from Toledo, Ohio who died on 27 April 2021, 11 weeks after his second Moderna shot on 03 February 2021.
  • Dan Kaminsky was a 42-year-old cybersecurity expert who died on 23 April 2021 less than two weeks after being injected with a COVID shot on 12 April 2021.
  • Baldwin Hills’ Star Ashley Taylor Gerren died on 18 April 2021 at the age of 30 after receiving the experimental jab.
  • 16-Year-Old Kamrynn Soleil Thomas of Waunakee, Wisconsin died on 30 March 2021 of “persistent cardiac arrest requiring ECMO,” “believed secondary to pulmonary embolism,” following 2 doses of the Pfizer jab.
  • Brad Malagarie was a 43-Year-Old father of 7 in St. Martin Mississippi who suffered a stroke and became paralyzed immediately after getting a Johnson and Johnson COVID shot on 13 April 2021.
  • Benjamin Goodman of Chelsea, New York, died on 14 March 2021 the day after received the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot on March 13.
  • Desirée Penrod was a 25-year-old educator from Connecticut who died on 17 March 2021 one week after her Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot.
  • Joshimar Henry was a 27-year-old resident doctor who died on 03 April 2021 three months after being among the first Chicago residents to get the initial dose of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA shot on December 15, 2020.
  • Sonia Azevedo, a 41-year-old Portuguese mother of two and surgical assistant at the Instituto Portugues de Oncologia, was found dead on new year’s day just two days after receiving the Pfizer jab.
  • John Francis Foley was a 21-year-old National Honor Society pre-med student at the University of Cincinnati who died on 10 April 2021 hours after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID jab.
  • Rachel McKinney, a 35-Year-Old UK nurse and mother of 2, died on 03 April 2021 following her dose of the experimental Pfizer jab.
  • Luke Garrett was a 20-Year-Old Scottish Man who suffered a fatal seizure and died on 09 February 2021 just 12 hours after being injected with the experimental Pfizer mRNA jab.
  • Dr. Haley Link Brinkmeyer was a 28-Year-Old PhD Physical Therapist who died on 21 January 2021 only 2 days after being injected with the experimental mRNA technology.
  • Dr. Kimberly Credit was the first female pastor at the Mount Zion Baptist Church in Boonton Township, New Jersey, died on 05 April 2021 at the age of 44 after taking the Moderna COVID shot.
  • Sara Stickles was another 28-year-old healthcare worker from Beloit, Wisconsin who died on 11 February 2021 from a ruptured brain aneurysm following her second dose of the Pfizer mRNA shot.
  • Kassidi Kurill was a 39-year-old surgical technician from Ogden, Utah who died 4 days after the second Moderna mRNA shot on 05 February 2021.
  • Virginia Ellington was a North Carolina college professor at Appalachian State University who died of a stroke on 10 March 2021 just 48 hours after receiving the experimental Johnson & Johnson injection.
  • Detroit’s CBS news anchor Karen Hudson-Samuels died suddenly on 09 February 2021 only one day after being injected with the experimental mRNA shot.
  • Dr. Witold Rogiewicz mocked anti-vaxxers in a video he taped of himself submitting to the experimental jab before dying days later on 14 February 2021.
  • Kansas City Council Woman Jeanie Marie Evans died on 24 March 2021 just hours after receiving the experimental COVID injection.
  • Augusta Turiaco was another Italian music teacher who died on 31 March 2021 following the administration of the AstraZeneca experiment on 11 March.
  • Ilaria Pappa was a 31-Year-Old Italian professor who died on 16 March 2021, two weeks after receiving the experimental AstraZeneca injection.
  • 37-year-old Zelia Guzzo was another Italian professor who died on 23 March 2021 of a thromboembolism (blood clots) three weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca injection.
  • Science professor Cinzia Pennino, also of Italy, died on 25 March 2021 following administration of AstraZeneca jab on 17 March.
  • Shirel Hilel was a 22-year-old Israeli girl who died from myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) two weeks after receiving her second dose of the experimental mRNA Pfizer injection.
  • Brandy Parker-McFadden of Nashville, mother of three, received her second Pfizer COVID shot on 16 April 2021 and hours later succumbed to catastrophic pain and soon became paralyzed, still unable to walk.
  • Dr. Gregory Michael, 56, developed a rare autoimmune disorder three days after receiving the Pfizer jab on 21 December 2020 and subsequently died on 03 January 2021.
  • Tim Zook’s health went into a sharp decline 2.5 hours after receiving his second shot and he was eventually transferred to the University of California, Irvine Medical Center where he died on 09 January.
  • Lisa Basiuk-Stonehouse, 50, passed away May 3, 2021 from a stroke caused by blood clots after receiving her AstraZeneca vaccine in Canada.
  • John Medved, a 58-year-old from Hibbing, Minnesota, received the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot on 1 April 2021 and died 21 days later from a pulmonary embolism (blood clots in his lungs).
  • Griselda Flores, 61, from Santa Ana, California was found dead by her family just two days after her second shot on 14 April 2021.
  • Megi Bakradze was a 27-Year-Old Nurse from Georgia who died the day after receiving an experimental shot of AstraZeneca on 19 March 2021.
  • An unidentified elderly man collapsed and died in Manhattan on 07 February 2021 only 25 minutes after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination at the Javits Center, according to a statement from New York state health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker, who cynically added, “I encourage all eligible New Yorkers to get vaccinated.”
  • James Develon is a Certified Nursing Assistant who reports that very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID and none of them died during the entire year of 2020 until shortly after administering experimental mRNA Pfizer jabs whereupon 14 residents died within two weeks with many others near death.
  • Raam Laxman was a 78-year old Bollywood music composer from India who died 6 days after his second AstraZeneca “Covishield” shot.
  • Jeanie Evans of Effingham, Illinois began to experience anaphylaxis following her dose of the experimental shot, and was taken to a hospital in Kansas where she later died on 24 March 2021.
  • Dana Ottmann, a 32-year-old German psychologist, developed blood clots and died 12 days after receiving the AstraZeneca shot.
  • Ronald Babb, Sr. was a 57-Year-Old from Syracuse who openly mocked so-called “anti-vaxxers,” after receiving the J&J jab on 12 April 2021 and subsequently died seven days later.
  • Clive Haddon of Australia died of fatal blood clots after receiving his AstraZeneca jab on the first of May.
  • Anthony Nguyen Kha Huy was a 45-year-old father of two from California who submitted to experimental injection on 20 April 2021 and died 10 days later of fatal blood clots.
  • NaTalia Johnson, a 37-year-old professional ballerina, died two weeks after injection.
  • Haziq Kamaruddin was a 27-year-old Olympic archer from Malaysia who died 10 days after his second Pfizer shot after developing fatal blood clots.
  • 26-year old Chance “Florexic” Sula died 2 weeks after his first Moderna dose from blood clots that led to a seizure and then a heart attack.

While the individual accounts of young, healthy adults dying post jab seems particularly concerning, the nursing home death statistics following vaccination may be even more grim. 22 nursing home residents in the Netherlands died 1 week after getting injected with the experimental mRNA COVID jab; 12 Welsh nursing home residents died in February after receiving their first COVID vaccine; 9 Irish nursing home residents died in March of “covid” after being mRNA “Vaccinated”; and 8 German nursing home residents died after being forcibly injected with the Pfizer experimental mRNA shot against their will.

This all begs another question…


While Biden and CNN urge us to participate in the experiment as a matter of moral and civic duty, the growing list of adverse effects rippling through the participants goes completely ignored.

The Israeli People’s Committee report on deaths and injuries from experimental Pfizer shots concludes that never before has a “vaccine” injured so many, citing a 22% increase in overall mortality since the roll out began, with a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day. Likewise the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo have both suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria jab in pregnant women following the death of a woman who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab. Then in May Sweden’s Medical Products Agency admitted to 31,844 reports of adverse reactions linked to its vaccine rollout.

A mainstream correspondent interviewing Bill Gates for CBS seemed flabbergasted when Gates shrugged off credible reports of side effects as no big deal. When the anchor pressed him again on the safety of the vaccine, his answer appeared to be simply, trust us.

Gates was asked, “Side effects from the Moderna vaccine sound concerning… We looked. After the second dose at least 80% of participants experienced a systemic side effect, ranging from severe chills to fevers. So are these vaccines safe?

Gates responded: “The FDA, not being pressured, will look hard at that. The FDA is the gold standard of regulators, and their current guidance on this — if they stick with that — is very very appropriate.”

But as Bloomberg reported in September 2020, it didn’t take long for Gates to turn on the FDA (and even the CDC) for political reasons. Beyond that, the FDA’s standards aren’t nearly as sterling as Gates might have us believe. As Dr. Angell explains:

The FDA may approve the drug on the basis of minimal evidence. For example, the agency usually requires simply that the drug work better than a placebo in two clinical trials, even if it doesn’t in other trials. But companies publish only the positive results, not the negative ones. Often, in fact, they publish positive results more than once, in slightly different forms in different journals. The FDA has no control over this selective publishing. The practice leads doctors to believe that drugs are much better than they are, and the public comes to share this belief, on the basis of media reports. There is a general inflation in the notion of the good that drugs can do (and a deflation in concern about side effects).” (Angell, 111)

Although quick to approve drugs, the FDA is slow to take them off the market when they prove dangerous. For instance, in 1997 Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug Rezulin was taken off the market in Britain because it caused liver failure, but it was not removed from the market in the United States until two and a half years later, by which time it had caused at least sixty-three deaths. (Angell, 209)

Congress also put the FDA on the pharmaceutical industry’s payroll. In 1992, it enacted the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorized drug companies to pay user fees to the FDA. These were to be employed only to expedite approval of drugs. Fees originally amounted to about $310,000 per new drug application and soon accounted for about half the budget of the agency’s drug evaluation center. That makes the FDA dependent on an industry it regulates. For the drug companies, the user fees are chump change—more than offset by the added income from getting to market sooner. … Members of FDA advisory committees are said to command unusually high consulting fees from drug companies. They are certainly in a strong position to do so. They probably don’t even have to say, “Pay me if you want your drugs approved.” According to the Washington Times reporter August Gribbin, “One drug company executive who asked not to be identified referred to the advisory committee members’ approaches for obtaining [consulting] work as ‘shakedowns’ because a company that refused to yield to such requests could doom products that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop.” (Angell, 211)

2020 provided a great example of this when the FDA ordered the heartburn drug Zantac off the shelves due to cancer risk after it was “discovered” that the active ingredient in Snofi’s Zantac and its equivalents, Ranitidine, was found to be contaminated with NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine), a probable carcinogen.

But one of the most shocking instances of industry malfeasance occurred over three decades ago when thousands of haemophilia patients contracted HIV and hepatitis from Bayer’s contaminated blood products. The National Center for Biotechnology Information reported the legal action taken against Bayer, and found that by 1992 the contaminated products had infected at least 5,000 haemophiliac people in Europe with HIV with more than 2,000 developing AIDS, and an additional 4,000 Japanese cases of haemophiliacs contracting AIDS.

Interestingly, a group of researchers at The Lancet medical journal warned last year that some of the covid vaccines could increase the risk of acquiring HIV, according to Forbes. And sure enough several Australian vaccine trial participants tested positive for HIV in December 2020, prompting the Australian government to in-turn scrap a billion dollar coronavirus vaccine agreement worth 51 million doses. The announcement came just days after FDA documents revealed that 6 participants died during Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trials. Participants were dying in trials from the very beginning, but the media rarely reported on stories like the volunteer who died on 15 October 2020 in AstraZeneca’s initial trials. This May the CDC reported 2 more infant deaths following clinical trials; a two-year-old dying in a Pfizer trial, and a one-year-old dying in a Moderna trial.

Bill Gates (who is now America’s top farmland owner and recently attempted to literally block out the sun) candidly admitted that vaccines constitute his ‘best investment’ after he turned $10 billion of “philanthropy” into $200 billion in profits. But there are more than just dollar signs motivating Bill Gates’s decree that three jabs would be necessary, or J&J CEO Alex Gorsky’s allegation that people may need an additional booster every twelve months in perpetuity after that.


When the Pfizer jab was first approved for emergency use in the United Kingdom, the English government warned that pregnant women should not take Pfizer’s vaccine, adding that,women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.” In its own clinical trial reports, Pfizer admits that women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant should not take the shots (page 38).

Perhaps this is why unvaccinated women have began reporting miscarriages as well as heavier, more painful and increasingly irregular menstrual cycles after interacting with vaccinated people. There are even reports of post-menopausal women all of a sudden menstruating again.

Though the media have done a good job ignoring it, a startling number of women have lost a baby as a result of a covid jab. Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce suffered a painful miscarriage just days after receiving her mRNA jab, and Mary Pat Voll, a pediatric nurse from Altamonte Springs, Florida, bragged about getting jabbed just eight days before her baby was pronounced stillborn. No wonder Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), warning that “vaccines could cause permanent infertility”. EMA animal trial analysis reveals that Pfizer’s fact sheets state pregnant or breastfeeding women should “discuss options with healthcare providers” before taking the covid jab, citing miscarriage as the most common adverse event reported by pregnant women who received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

Given that these vaccine companies are tied up with known eugenicists, maybe miscarriages and infertility aren’t such strange anomalies after all. As Whitney Webb explains in her expose, Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement, sterilization seems to be more of a deliberate feature than an accidental bug:

Yet, arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century….Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to “improve the biological stock of the human race.”

Mr. Bill Gates’s own ties to eugenics help explain his numerous public pleas to “reduce population growth” by 10–15% through vaccination. And the track record of his foundation reflects this. Last year the UN was forced to admit that a Gates-funded vaccine caused a polio outbreak in Africa, adding to a long history of deadly “investments”.


What all of these drug companies have in common is a long and gruesome history of causing mass carnage with so-called wonder drugs. But of all the companies developing experimental jabs this year, Johnson and Johnson’s rap sheet appears among the most scandalous.

Last autumn, for instance, Johnson and Johnson was ordered to pay $5 billion in total settlements as part of a gigantic $48 billion deal, after more than 2,000 lawsuits alleged that the company contributed to the opioid crisis by overselling the benefits of its painkillers. The judge ruled that J&J distributed “false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns” for opioids that led to “exponentially increasing rates of addiction” and overdose deaths.” But that’s just the tip of J&J’s criminal history iceberg.

In 1995 J&J paid $7.5 million for destroying documents to cover up an investigation into wrongful marketing of its Retin-A acne cream to remove wrinkles. In 2000 J&J’s subsidiary LifeScan paid $105 million for selling defective blood glucose monitors and failed to inform the FDA. In 2001 J&J paid $860 million in a class action lawsuit for misleading customers about its 1-Day Acuvue soft contact lens. In 2010 J&J paid $81 million for misbranding its anti-epileptic drug Topamax to treat psychiatric disorders and hiring outside physicians to join its sales force to promote the drug for unapproved conditions. In 2011 J&J paid $70 million for conspiracy after paying off Greek doctors to advance its product sales. That same year J&J paid $85 million for similar charges against its heart drug Natrecor. Several of J&J’s baby products were discovered to contain carcinogenic ingredients. J&J would later pay $127 million in damages for the talc in its J&J Baby Powder causing ovarian cancer (court documents later revealed that J&J themselves suspected a link between talcum and ovarian cancer as far back as the 1970s). In 2013 J&J paid nearly $2.5 billion to compensate 8,000 recipients for its flawed hip implants, and another $1 billion in 2016 for the same reason. When J&J’s Motrin IB caplets were discovered to not properly dissolve, they hired outside contractors to buy up store supplies in order to avoid making public declaration. The following year J&J was charged $2.2 billion in criminal fines after forty-five US states filed civil lawsuits, not only because the antipsychotic drug Risperdal caused men to grow breasts, but also for marking its autism drug for unapproved uses. By 2019 J&J were under criminal investigation by federal authorities for concealing the cancer risks of their name-brand baby powder (Talcum powder is procured from pure talc, which grows along with asbestos in the veins of the earth).

This is not a company with a clean ethical record. Yet, some seem eager for J&J’s “one shot and you’re done” adenovirus-based vaccine. While it is true that Johnson and Johnson have paid billions in criminal settlements, they have absolutely no experience in the vaccine department.

Comparing this track record with other drug companies, we can say that as bad as J&J’s history is, at least they have a product history; Moderna has never successfully brought a product to market before now.


Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas, who proved an outspoken voice on the subject of pandemic profiteering, stated that, “The power of the industry combined with fear is driving extraordinary spending. It all suggests rosy times ahead for the pharmaceutical industry.” As though on cue, Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, sold off 62 percent of his stock the same day his company publicly declared their experimental jab 90% effective. What a coincidence.

California Governor Gavin Newsom likewise provided a window into the ugly business of pandemic profiteering when he gave Blue Shield a $15 million no-bid contract to manage California’s vaccination efforts, after Blue Shield reportedly contributed almost $23 million to the Democratic governor’s campaigns, also resulting in nominations of Blue Shield executives to positions of power by the governor (such as Blue Shield CEO Paul Markovich who was appointed “to help steer the state’s COVID testing strategy”).

And the news that taxpayers will enjoy the privilege of footing the bill for all of this arrives as music to Pharma’s ears. According to Ellen Brown, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already agreed to provide up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca and another $483 million to Moderna to develop their experimental technologies. Writing for Forbes, William Haseltine argues that American taxpayers are justified in asking “why?”

Both companies have attracted billions from private investors and don’t need taxpayer money, and the government’s speculative bets are being made on unproven technologies in the early stages of testing. The profits will go to the companies and their shareholders, while the liabilities will be borne by the public. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability for vaccine injuries by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the 2005 PREP Act, which impose damages instead on the US government and US taxpayers.”

As CNBC likewise reported:

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.” Dallas labor and employment attorney Rogge Dunn was keen to note that, “It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed.”

The tactics employed to sell this jab feel reminiscent of the those used by Monsanto and the tobacco companies in years past. Because of the lawsuits that followed the frenzied vaccine rollout pushed in the 1970’s, Pharma’s liability exclusion exists under the legal presumption that mRNA gene therapy is a “vaccine” instead of what it actually is.

“Drug companies are in business to sell drugs. Period. They are exactly the wrong people to evaluate the products they sell. I am not saying that all of the information drug companies provide to doctors is false. Some of it is useful and valid. But information from companies comes mixed with hyperbole, bias, and misinformation, and there is often no way to tell which is which.(Angell, 250)

The media profited handsomely from this mess as well. CNN technical director Charlie Chester inadvertently revealed the true mindset and motivations of his network in a series of videos wherein he admitted that the panic was “gangbusters” for ratings. He divulged that his coverage relied heavily on scare tactics and fear-mongering to keep people watching, explaining the ever-present death toll burned onto the corner of our screens 24/7. Chester even admits that he sometimes wished for the death toll to be higher during the panic of 2020 to help “drive the point home” with viewers. If ever CNN producers removed the statistic counter from the screen, the red “batphone” would ring with a call from network president Jeff Zucker demanding to bring it back. Because ratings mean profits, and profits mean everything.

Dr. Angell’s concluding chapter affirms that industry always favors profits over all considerations:

“Even granting the possibility that some individuals may respond very differently to these drugs, does that justify accepting a greatly increased risk of heart attacks and strokes? Since those who most need pain relievers for arthritis are precisely those older people most vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, the drugs have probably caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes among the millions of people who have taken them regularly. That is a tremendous carnage to balance against the dubious proposition that the drugs offer something unique for pain relief. It is the FDA’s job to see that the benefits of prescription drugs outweigh the risks. It seems clear to me that the agency failed to do so in this case.” (Angell, 276)


Of all the adverse effects experienced by test subjects, the vaccine seems to also cause a violent allergic reaction to information about the vaccine, especially among those who read the Associated Press, listen to NPR, and watch MSNBC for information. While many express so-called “vaccine hesitancy” in 2021 (including a majority of US military service personnel and a “startlingly high percentage of health care professionals”) the fact remains that one third of Americans expressed skepticism about the covid jab as early as February, and the number of so-called “vaccine hesitant” individuals may be far greater. Additional polls indicate that the number of Americans unwilling to submit to experimental medical protocols may range as high as 54% to 58%.

As a result, the corporate propaganda escalated to hysterical levels. One headline from Yahoo News reads:Covid-19 Vaccine May Have Unpleasant Side Effects. That Will Mean It’s Working.A Guardian piece from February entitled “It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated” posits that men of a certain skin color will cause poor people to suffer the highest death rates. And Cuomo appointee Tracey Edwards told New Yorkers in March to take the vaccine and “do not question what is in it.

Perhaps the most insidious of media falsehoods came in the seemingly innocuous forms of selective reporting and misleading interpretations of facts. The most reported vaccine-caused deaths in the United States overwhelmingly resulted from blood clots related to the J&J jab, but when reported, these single-digit deaths are repeatedly weighed against the millions who have received that vaccine. Far short of acknowledging the death toll recorded by the government-funded database known as the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS), mainstream media consistently focuses instead on a small handful of deaths from a single, very specific disorder. The news stories always emphasize the comparative safety of the J&J jab and seek to reassure Americans that health officials are acting out of an abundance of caution. This selective over-reporting seems calibrated to drown out the comparatively rare reports of over 4,000 deaths caused by the rest of the laundry list of vaccine-induced disorders. By constantly repeating a statistic that shows a comforting level of safety and caution, corporate mouthpieces in the media are able to obscure the risk of death from numerous other causes.

The declaration that trust in Pharma represents an extension of illiteracy, though deliberately provocative, is not meant as pejorative. Ignorance of the facts does not make one stupid; simply uninformed. However, if the absurd headlines above don’t trigger any red flags among readers, those readers would do well to update their bullshit detectors. Because knowing how to read does not make one literate any more than knowing how to sound out vowels and consonants makes one an orator. As our world continues transforming into an ever more confusing spectacle at an accelerating rate, we cannot change the media landscape or the world we live in, but we can become media literate and learn how to critically evaluate what we’re exposed to by mass media.

Media literacy is defined as a repertoire of competences that allows us to identify and evaluate the multitude of sophisticated propaganda techniques used on us every day by advertising agencies and corrupt governments. It’s the ability to read between the column inches; to tell the difference between Sponsored Content and news; to identify the manipulation techniques employed by the attention engineers and perception management teams working at the firms that brought these images before your consciousness.

To begin identifying said techniques, we can simply ask ourselves, with every piece of media we consume, “Who made this?” “Why do they want me to consume their product?” “Is it really selling what it’s advertising?” “How did this message get my attention?” “What creative techniques were used to attract my attention?” How might different people understand this message differently?” And, “Why is this message being broadcast?”

“As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis.” ~George Orwell

It’s important to keep in mind that the status quo fib factory is owned by only 6 multinational corporations, meaning there may be more mainstream channels available, but fewer owners and therefore fewer sources of influence. They attack news organizations that publish critical stories, whistleblowers who talk, politicians who ask tough questions, and journalists who report. They mix truth and lies to convince us to dismiss everything, including the truth. They publish headlines contradicted by the articles that follow them, knowing few will ever notice. They claim to “debunk myths” that aren’t myths at all, and instead of questioning authority, they attack those who do.

To hide their overwhelming influence, this handful of conglomerates employs “astroturfing” among its methods to disguise corporate content as authentic, grass-roots efforts. Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center (a bioethics think tank) once stated that, “It’s ethically problematic when a company creates entities but then tries to pass them off as authentic and spontaneous grass-roots organizations. What bothers me is the deceptiveness.” A bit of digging reveals that special interests have employed astroturf camouflage for decades, publishing blogs and letters or starting social media accounts and leaving lots of comments, all of which favor the industry.

For instance, the astroturf slogan, “You’re not a medical doctor!” rippled throughout 2020 as a logically-impaired means of shutting down anyone critical of the official narrative. Forgetting for a moment that half of the country’s doctor’s were the ones expressing concerns (or that Bill Gates isn’t a doctor either). Are credentials the only metric for measuring statements? Do I need to be a licensed auto mechanic to observe unnatural noises coming from my engine? Do I have to be a licensed dietitian to read nutrition facts? If we print ingredients on food labels to help consumers avoid carcinogens like aspartame and carrageenan, why is it not so with experimental medical protocols?


Conscripting 7 billion healthy people to submit to an experimental medical treatment involving a needle-full of a DNA-altering substance that was rushed through development by some of the most corrupt corporations on the planet would be impossible without clever marketing. So Pharma spent billions deceiving the public with televised misinformation.

Dr. Angell outlines the fundamental problem regarding drug advertising:

“The huge amount of marketing also raises the question: If prescription drugs are so good, why do they need to be pushed so hard? Wouldn’t the world beat a path to the door of a company that produced, say, a cure for cancer? The answer is that truly good drugs don’t have to be promoted very much. A genuinely important new drug, such as Gleevec, sells itself.” (Angell, 133)

Of all the reasons for healthy people to be convinced to purchase a drug, “asking our doctor” if something we saw on television is “right for us” may constitute Big Pharma’s greatest trickery of all:

“Once upon a time, drug companies promoted drugs to treat diseases. Now it is often the opposite. They promote diseases to fit their drugs. Nearly everyone experiences heartburn from time to time. The remedy used to be a glass of milk or an over-the-counter antacid to relieve the symptoms. But now heartburn is called “acid reflux disease” or “gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)” and marketed, along with the drugs to treat it, as a harbinger of serious esophageal disease—which it usually is not. As a result, in 2002, Prilosec was the third best selling drug in the world (Nexium had not yet had a chance to replace it), and its competitor Prevacid was seventh.” (Angell, 86)

Maybe this helps explain why it’s immoral to entice people into medical treatments, either by offering high school students a chance to win an electric bike as Missoula County Public Schools have done, or coercing the poor with “vaccine lotteries” as Ohio’s Governor Mike DeWine has done.

Perhaps Governor DeWine missed an important opportunity to display unusual medical candor when he neglected to compare his lottery to Shirley Jackson’s classic dystopian short story “The Lottery”. In DeWine’s lottery, one member of the community is randomly selected each week as the winner of a million dollar prize, but how many citizens that sign up for experimental injection will be randomly selected as “the winner” of a rare blood clot, debilitating auto-immune disease, miscarriage or death?

Other bribes offered by local and state government to entice people into this experiment include Shake Shack Burgers, Krispy Kreme Donuts, and $50 gift cards.


Beyond the question of whether manipulating participants into medical experimentation under false pretenses violates the hypocratic oath, aren’t unprovoked discussions about vaccinations just as inappropriate for polite conversation as your last annual exam, pap smear, or colonoscopy? Do employers understand that any discussion one way or the other about this clearly violates HIPPA guidelines and opens up a massive door for potential lawsuit?

Legal precedent to those ends is already being set. New Mexico Detention Center officer Isaac Legaretta filed the first US lawsuit over mandatory covid vaccines on the first of March 2021. His attorney Ana Garner told Bloomberg News: “You can’t be forced to be a human guinea pig. We have the right to bodily integrity.”

May we please remind all those who are “just following orders” that Nazi officers who offered up the same pathetic excuse at Nuremberg were executed for crimes against humanity? The last time humans launched a plan like this to conduct experimental medical protocols on vulnerable populations was in Auschwitz where Joseph “angel of death” Mengele conducted medical experimentation focused primarily on children with no regard for the health or safety of his victims. In the end, many of the doctors who committed said human experiments on behalf of the Third Reich were put on trial in Nuremberg and subsequently executed.

With the adoption of the 1947 Nuremberg Code, humanity hoped to never repeat these sins of history ever again. The Code may be the most important legal document in the history of medical research ethics, as it established ten principles upon which clinical research could be presumed to be “ethical”. The first and foremost principle declares “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. It prohibits research to be conducted on human beings without the informed consent of the individual. As recently as 2009, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York cited the Nuremberg Code as: “the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

To quote human rights attorney Leigh Dundas, the covid ‘vaccine’ represents an experimental medical protocol that was authorized under the Emergency Use Authorization Act, and killed every last ferret in the final animal study performed by the industry. Based on said mortality rates of ferrets in animal trials, Dr. Christiane Northrup estimates a maximum life expectancy of 2 years in humans following administration of this experimental medical protocol. Former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Yeadon also warns that booster shots are completely unnecessary and represent tools of mass murder.

Many of the test animals that died, perished a result of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) acquired from the vaccine. When the animal’s immune systems were challenged with the virus they were supposed to be immunized from, their immune systems were unable to identify it. So like a Trojan horse, the virus entered the body unseen by the immune system and began replicating unchecked, eventually overwhelming the host with fatal sepsis and cardiac failure. This is what is meant by “vaccine enhanced disease,” wherein vaccinated people experience more severe illness when exposed to the virus they were supposedly vaccinated against.


Subjecting healthy people to this medical experiment seems highly unnecessary given that, according to the CDC’s best estimate, the virus yields a 99.5 percent survival rate for those under 70 years old. That hasn’t stopped establishment figures from haranguing the “hesitant” with a deluge of ad hominem attacks aimed toward “anti-science grandma killers” who constitute the real reason we can’t get society moving forward again. This demographic may ultimately be blamed indefinitely for anything that goes wrong for years to come. Indeed, Kit Knightly recently revealed how the CDC are manipulating data explicitly to hide breakthrough cases and blame unvaccinated for “outbreaks”. We’re all told that unless we agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever. But that’s precisely backwards. We shouldn’t be altering our entire society to cater exclusively to its weakest, most fragile members, while clipping the wings of everyone else. If pathological hypochondriacs are afraid to come outside, they’re welcome to stay home.

Questioning the motives of Big Pharma does not make one an “anti-vaxxer” any more than questioning America’s imperial wars makes one anti-American. Anti-vaxxers are against vaccines in principal, discounting any potential good; an extreme just as illogical as automatically placing trust into any of Pharma’s products. This takes into account the fact that Merriam-Webster very recently expanded its definition of “anti-vaxxer” to include “people who oppose laws that mandate vaccination.” But given that a December poll found only 21% of Americans in support of vaccine mandates, deductively this means that 79% of Americans are now, according to Merriam-Webster, anti-vaxxers.

But Pharma’s astroturfers loudly decry that the only people questioning the legitimacy and safety of this vaccine rollout are supporters of Qanonsense, who must be Trump voters, and thus, white supremacists by extension (or Russian agents, or whatever useful pejorative is in fashion at the time) and therefore deplorable people that we can all agree need to be rounded up and placed into joy camps for reeducation. Unfortunately, there are people who actually believe this line of logic, despite the fact that none of the aforementioned European officials halting the rollout ever voted for Donald Trump or give a rat’s rear end about the letter Q. This is nothing more than the anti-logic of anti-intellectuals who refuse to think for themselves and resent those who do.

History will vindicate the cautious because it has never paid to rush into unfamiliar situations without performing due diligence. Hurrying into this experiment seems particularly ill advised when weighed against the personalities waging it, their own claims about what it does, and the observable “side effects” that have begun to follow as a result. It should surprise no one that the pharmaceutical companies are willing to kill people with dangerous products to turn a profit, but as long as the regulatory agencies remain dominated by Pharma, they can always fool somebody into buying their toxic products. Whether this information will ever reach the public at large remains an open question. The fact that most people remain blissfully unaware that literally billions of masks are ending up in the oceans so millions of hysterical humans can delude themselves with a false sense of security illustrates how difficult it is to express anything consequential in a media landscape dominated exclusively by “pleasant things”.

Social media, while initially aimed toward connecting people together, has instead isolated individuals within custom-tailored bubbles of content and connection that are free from any disagreement, difference of opinion, or compromise with others. But learning has never had anything to do with agreement, and pretending it does severely limits our capabilities. If everyone had to agree about everything all the time nobody would ever learn anything. And if we can’t agree on what is true, it becomes impossible to navigate through any of society’s problems. As Jeff Flake contended in The Social Dilemma, “tribalism is no way for sane adults to act.” Because in the end the polarization of the population creates two sides that both want the other dead.

Marcia Angell excerpts adapted from The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It, New York, Random House, 2004.

Printer Friendly Version