top of page


by John Spritzler

April 24, 2023

The URL of this article for sharing it is

Early in the Covid-19 pandemic three years ago I wrote about it here  and here; also subsequently here and here.


In these articles I said that a) Covid-19 was indeed a serious health threat; b) vaccines may be a useful treatment but they were a gamble (because of a lack of long term--many years duration--testing and the fact that sometimes vaccines do more harm than good); c) I personally chose to get vaxed and boosted, knowing it was a gamble; d) vaccines were at best not the only proper response to the pandemic but the ruling class was proceeding as if they were. 

I also wrote that the ruling class always needed to be perceived as acting to protect the welfare of the general public or else it risked revolution. For this reason, when there was a pandemic, the ruling class would be motivated to do things to seem, if not actually, to be protecting the public, and if dramatic things were required for this purpose (such as shut-downs) then it would enact them. The point is that, contrary to what the people who called the pandemic a "shamdemic" said, the shut-down and later vaccination policies of the ruling class--which did indeed increase ruling class social control for a time--were not necessarily only intended to increase the power of the ruling class over ordinary people, nor were these policies proof that the pandemic was a fake 'shamdemic' that was no more serious than the flu and deliberately created as a pretext for increased social control.


To avoid revolution the ruling class is sometimes forced to do the right thing; for example Hitler was forced to cancel his evil euthanasia (killing useless eaters) program to avoid revolution when the formerly secret program was discovered by a furious public.


At the time of my earlier writing I had no evidence that the published results of the Pfizer and Moderna RNA vaccines were fraudulent, although I knew (and had written about the fact) that Big Pharma did sometimes 'cook the data' when it was profitable to do so, as described in the book The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine.


Recently, however, I encountered this article that suggests that Moderna 'cooked the data' about its RNA vaccine.

I also encountered this video that suggests that some deaths attributed primarily to Covid-19 were not actually so.

On October 9, 2023 I watched this video interview of Professor Dalgleish, a very top notch vaccine authority, about the harm of Covid-19 vaccines and boosters. Maybe he is right; I don't pretend to know for sure. It would be instructive to see a good back-and-forth written debate between Prof. Dalgleish and scientists who disagree with him. Alas, our medical/academic establishment often does not permit such.

There are some reports that the frequency of adverse events is way too high not to be alarming. 

Articles by skeptics re Covid-19 and vaccinations:

1. "10 Years After HHS Asked CDC to Study Safety of Childhood Vaccine Schedule, CDC Hasn’t Produced It"

2. "Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders"

3. "Health effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth"

If I encounter more such articles or videos I will link to them here.

An interesting website is Covid-19 Data Science. It has, for example, an article titled,"What does USA Group Term Life Insurance Report say about Young Adult Excess Deaths in Fall 2021?"

An article titled, "The dead don't lie: 2 million dead from mRNA jabs!" presents data that seem to show that the CDC and FDA ignored an alarming number of deaths closely following (and hence likely caused by) administration of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, but in contrast acted quickly to halt the use of a J&J DNA Covid-19 vaccine when there were far fewer such reported deaths. A possible explanation for this would be that the people in control of the CDC and FDA had some reason for wanting to protect Pfizer and Moderna but not J&J. What might that reason be? One possibility is having a financial stake in Pfizer and/or Moderna but not in J&J. Another possibility--which the authors, Peter and Ginger Breggin, advocate--is that the powers that be intended all along to use Pfizer and Moderna (but not J&J) to reduce the world's population with a lethal vaccination. 

An article titled, "Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination" in reporting a study based on data through May 29, 2021 on 10,162 ,227 vaccine-eligible members of 8 participating US health plans found  the incidence of selected serious outcomes was not significantly higher 1 to 21 days postvaccination compared with 22 to 42 days postvaccination for similar individuals after vaccine dose 1 or 2.


The root problem, of course, is that we live in a dictatorship of a billionaire plutocracy that does not actually care about our welfare and will lie when it enables it to increase its power and control over us. The solution is this.

bottom of page