COVID-19
Funeral director says 25% of bodies now have ‘fibrous clots’ in arteries after COVID shots

Funeral Director John O’Looney
From LifeSiteNews
By Frank Wright
Despite attempts to alert authorities to the novel clotting, no action has been taken, with government policy seemingly avoiding investigation.
Reports have persisted following the rollout of the so-called mRNA “vaccines” of the incidence of white fibrous clots in the bodies of the deceased.
Despite repeated attempts to “debunk” the sudden and widespread appearance of these clots, evidence is mounting that they are not only present, but that the reason this novel pathology has attracted hardly any attention from the medical profession is that the dead in whose bodies they are found have one thing in common:
They have all been vaccinated.
Two recent video interviews featuring whistleblowers from the U.K. and the U.S. have now been published, in which each present evidence of the presence of white fibrous “calamari-like” clots in the corpses of the COVID vaccinated.
The claim that they occur in those who have received the mRNA injections is advanced by both men. One, John O’Looney, is a funeral director from Milton Keynes in England. He is the source of the shocking quote above, made in a recent interview with nurse instructor Dr. John Campbell.
Published on February 9, the video details how O’Looney began to notice the incidence of these novel fibrous white clots “around six months after the [COVID] vaccines were introduced.”
He states that midway through 2021 he noticed the first incidence of the white fibrous clots – six months after the introduction of the so called “vaccines.”
O’Looney says that around “25 percent” of all bodies he sees now have these clots present.
He showed a recent sample of these “arterial obstructions”: “They grow inside the arteries and veins and take the shape of them” – until those who develop them die, claims O’Looney.
So how are they different from normal clots – commonly called “thromboses”?
The clots we are seeing are different – traditionally clots are like jelly – you can wash them down the sink.
These clots are very tough – like calamari.
I have never seen anything like this. It is very tough, very rubbery.
I can’t see how this can be removed without invasive surgery.
We follow government policy
O’Looney says he has repeatedly attempted to alert the authorities, with no action taken as a result.
He related the recent postmortem of a young man who “died suddenly,” having discovered a “bright white” clot the “full length” of the leg of the deceased.
O’Looney claims he documented the strange clot with the local coroner by email. A later response from the pathologist said that these clots normally form and “there was nothing to report,” directing him to effectively “dispose of the evidence,” said O’Looney.
He added that the BIE – the national embalmer’s organization – has warned its members not to speak to him personally. The chief coroner has refused to investigate.
“When I emailed the chief coroner of England I did not get a reply,” O’Looney said. On a second attempt he received a “four word reply” from the secretary, simply stating “We follow government policy.”
O’Looney concluded that it is therefore government policy to refuse to investigate. “We have record numbers of excess deaths. We are trying to raise the alarm and nobody is listening.” Instead, O’Looney claims the authorities “are actively gaslighting people.” Deaths involving the presence of these anomalous clots are attributed to “thrombosis,” with no mention of any relation to the so-called “vaccines.”
Not alone
O’Looney claims he has had “60 or 70 other funeral directors contact” him in support, saying “mortuary managers have told me thrombosis deaths have gone up 600 percent.”
Why have they not spoken out? “These people are frightened” O’Looney says, “I am just not frightened. I have a moral compass which will not allow me to be complicit.”
Against the debunkers’ charge that there is no evidence of any connection to the mRNA injections, O’Looney says he has asked “the loved ones of the deceased” whether they had received a COVID jab.
“They are all vaccinated.”
Nurse John Campbell, Ph.D., points out that this “new pathology” is something doctors would normally be motivated to investigate. O’Looney explains why this is not happening:
Where do the families go with it? The coroners won’t entertain it. I reported this to Thames Valley Police on April 28 of last year, incident number 1068.
I said I really need to speak to someone about [these deaths].
They would not even speak to me.
This has left him with “no faith in the police or in the system at all.”
Measures on suspicious deaths ‘diluted’
O’Looney says measures to monitor and record unlawful deaths may be removed.
“It’s a great time to do a murder,” he notes, as the measures to prevent corpses being cremated under suspicious circumstances have been “diluted – as a result of COVID, so they said.”
Formerly, he claims, two doctors would have to certify a cremation – this has now been reduced to one.
“I won’t stop telling the truth” says O’Looney, citing a report from a hospice nurse showing “turbo cancers” which kill within weeks of having no symptoms, dying of aggressive cancer “before they can receive a single treatment.”
“These people have one thing in common. They have all been vaccinated.”
Whilst Campbell says “This can’t be hidden much longer,” O’Looney warns of the “future these genocidal maniacs have for us.”
He says he has lost friends and even relatives over allegations he is a “conspiracy theorist.”
Yet far from being a lone voice, his data is “completely consistent with that collected by Major Tom Havilland,” as Campbell says.
A survey conducted by retired U.S. Air Force Major Thomas Haviland found that “70 percent of embalmers reported finding strange blood clots beginning in mid-2021.”
Haviland carried out a second survey in 2023, with over twice the number of participating embalmers from across the U.S.
His study showed that over 75 percent of respondents were still seeing the anomalous fibrous white clots.
Evidence from US investigations
Alex Jones has published a video featuring U.S. funeral director Richard Hirschman showing vials containing clots identical to those displayed by O’Looney.
One of four funeral directors on the show, Hirschman is shown extracting one such clot from the jugular vein of a deceased and vaccinated individual.
“These are the strange white fibrous materials we are seeing.” One was “27 inches long,” he said.
“We used to never see clots in arteries – they are typically in veins. They are abnormal – rubbery – like a rubber band.”
In a second show, Jones interviewed Haviland himself, who said his interest in the issue was provoked by the controversial Stew Peters documentary, “Died Suddenly.”
“I watched that the night it premiered, the week of thanksgiving of 2022,” Haviland said. “I know there are some problems with the film, but at the thirteenth minute an amazing statement was made.”
Haviland refers to seeing the embalmer from the state of Indiana, Wallace Hooker, who on October 26, 2022, was briefing “about a hundred embalmers” at an Ohio Embalmers’ Association lecture.
“He showed them photographs of these white fibrous clots… and asked – “by a show of hands, how many of you are seeing these?”
Haviland says:
Almost the entire room of 100 embalmers raised their hands – yes.
He continues, saying the embalmers “all agreed it was in the middle of 2021” that the clots first began to be noticed – “after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.”
Haviland decided to investigate himself. The next day he called the president, vice president, and secretary of the Ohio Embalmers’ Association.
“The vice president corroborated” the claims, saying he had “seen the clots himself.”
In the video, Haviland goes on to present evidence from his two surveys in a presentation.
The surveys, conducted in 2022 and 2023, show details of admitted clotting side effects from the COVID shots, and that two thirds of embalmers he contacted in his first survey had witnessed the novel fibrous white clots in “up to 50 percent or more of their corpses.”
His studies, to which international embalmers also responded, show that the higher incidence of clotting is not restricted to the novel pathology of these white fibrous clots, but also shows a sharp increase in “traditional ‘grape jelly’ blood clots.”
Haviland was keen to corroborate the testimony of John O’Looney. When asked why more did not participate in the study or speak out, he too cited fear as one reason, with the reluctance of funeral directors to admit such side effects in vaccines they are likely to have compelled their own employees to take.
“Embalmers want to tell you what they are seeing only if they think they have permission” – from the authorities, says Haviland.
A lot of these [embalmers’] association presidents are directors themselves of funeral homes.
Would you want to participate in a survey showing these clots if you have mandated your employees to get the vaccine?
Fact check?
Haviland’s, Jones’, and O’Looney’s findings have been repeatedly dismissed and “debunked.”
The Poynter Institute is one leading self-appointed authority which claims to have disproven O’Looney’s reports. It says there is “no scientific evidence” for any connection between the clots and the mRNA injections.
Its purported rebuttal reads as a template for the maintenance of the COVID narrative.
The rebuttal –such as it is – immediately pivots from discussion of the evidence to warning people to take more of the so called “vaccines.” The strategy relies on attributing any alleged adverse effects of the “vaccine” to COVID-19 itself.
On February 10, 2022, the Poynter Institute “debunking” said, “Experts we talked to say there’s something to the claim about a greater incidence of blood clots, but they dismiss the idea that it’s linked to the vaccines.”
“What embalmers are noticing, they say, could well be the effects of COVID-19 infection itself, and those effects are occurring in people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.”
Why is there no evidence presented by the Poynter Institute for its own claims? There is no attempt to investigate the abnormally high incidence of all types of clotting in the deceased in the period immediately following mass “vaccination.” Similarly, no attempt has been made to investigate the international incidence of vaccine side effects being reported by people like Haviland and O’Looney.
“It’s only anecdotal evidence, and there’s no scientific evidence to draw any conclusions,” said Jessica Koth, director of public relations for the U.S.-based National Funeral Directors Association in the Poynter article.
Why is there no “scientific evidence”? No scientists seem willing to study the case at all. As Campbell pointed out, it is unusual that there is so little interest in a “novel pathology.”
Unevidenced claims
Poynter’s supposed rebuttal itself makes an unevidenced claim which, through repetition alone, appears to be held up as the truth by those who still believe that the “vaccines” are “100% safe and effective.”
“Generally, the vaccines available in the U.S. have been shown to sharply reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” their February 2022 article states.
There is no way of distinguishing between “vaccine” and viral harm as no effort was made to do so, which itself is a suspicious measure when promoting a novel treatment whose manufacturers are permanently indemnified from any resulting claims of injury or death.
It is noteworthy that the so-called “vaccines” were not initially advertised on television as they had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. This, claim the debunkers, is a fact unrelated to the requirement to include warnings of known adverse effects.
Motivated reasoning
The motives of those defending the “vaccines” from any connection to the emergence of these fibrous clots, other thromboses, and the many horrendous conditions noted by doctors such as Britain’s Dr. David Cartland is at one with “following government policy.”
What then is the motive of people like John O’Looney?
O’Looney claimed in his interview with Campbell that he is motivated only by “truth and honesty, and the desire to protect others.”
“We are raising concerns – but no one is listening.”
He is also determined to see those responsible brought to justice, as he said in May 2023:
I’ll be totally honest, I live now only to give my testimony in Nuremberg and see these people sentenced appropriately for their crimes against humanity and shame on those who took the money and went along with it.
They will fill the prisons they built for us.
COVID-19
The Trials of Liberty: What the Truckers Taught Canada About Power and Protest

Half the country still believes the convoy was a menace; the other half thinks it was a mirror that showed how fragile our freedoms had become.
This Thanksgiving I am grateful for many things. The truckers who stood up to injustice are among them.
When the first rigs rolled toward Ottawa in January 2022, the air was sharp, but not as sharp as the mood of the men and women behind the wheels. They were not radicals. Seeing a CBC a campaign of disinformation about them begin as soon as their trek started, even when Ottawa political operatives hadn’t yet heard, I started following several of them on their social media.
They were truckers, small business owners, independent contractors, and working Canadians who had spent two years hauling the essentials that kept a paralyzed nation alive. They were the same people politicians, including Prime Minister Trudeau, had called “heroes” in 2020. By 2022, they had become “threats.”
The Freedom Convoy was born from exhaustion with naked hypocrisy. The federal government that praised them for risking exposure on the road now barred the unvaccinated from crossing borders or even earning a living. Many in provincial governments cheered Ottawa on. The same officials who flew to foreign conferences maskless or sat in private terraces to dine, let’s recall, still forced toddlers to wear masks in daycare. Public servants worked from home while police fined citizens for walking in parks.
These contradictions were not trivial; they were models of tyrannical rule. They told ordinary people that rules were for the ruled, not for rulers.
By late 2021, Canada’s pandemic response had hardened into a hysterical moral regime. Compliance became a measure of virtue, not prudence. Citizens who questioned the mandates were mocked as conspiracy theorists. Those who questioned vaccine efficacy were treated as fools; those who refused vaccination were treated as contagious heretics. Even science was no longer scientific. When data showed that vaccines did not prevent transmission, officials changed definitions instead of policies. The regime confused authority with truth. One former provincial premier just this week was still hailing the miracle of “life-saving” COVID vaccines.
For truckers, the breaking point came with the federal vaccine mandate for cross-border transport. Many had already complied with provincial rules and workplace testing. Others had recovered from COVID and had natural immunity that the government refused to recognize. To them, the new rule was not about safety; it was about humiliation. It said, “Obey, or you are unfit to work.”
So they drove.
Donna Laframboise, one of the rare journalists who works for citizens instead of sponsors, described the convoy in her book Thank You, Truckers! with gratitude and awe. She saw not a mob but a moral statement. She showcased for us Canadians who refused to live by lies. Their horns announced what polite society whispered: the emergency had become a creepy habit, and the habit had become a tool of control.
When the convoy reached Ottawa, it was messy, loud, and human. There was singing, prayer, laughter, dancing and some foolishness, but also remarkable discipline. For three weeks, amid frigid temperatures and rising tension, there were no riots, no arsons, no looting. In a country that once prized civility, that should have earned respect.
Instead, it attracted the media’s and government’s contempt.
The Trudeau government, rattled by its own public failures, sprung to portray the protest as a national security threat. Ministers invoked language fit for wartime. The Prime Minister, who had initially fled the city claiming to have tested positive, returned to declare that Canadians were under siege by “racists” and “misogynists.” The accusations were as reckless as they were false. The government’s real grievance was not chaos but defiance.
Then came the Emergencies Act. Designed for war, invasion, or insurrection, it was now deployed against citizens with flags and thermoses. Bank accounts were frozen without charge or trial. Insurance policies were suspended. Police weilding clubs were unleashed against unarmed citizens. The federal government did not enforce the law; it improvised it.
A faltering government declared itself the victim of its citizens. The Emergency declaration was not a reaction to danger; it was a confession of political insecurity. It exposed a leadership that could not tolerate dissent and recast obedience for peace.
Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts, express your gratitude and support our work, consider becoming a a paid subscriber.
The convoy’s organizers, who kept the protest largely peaceful, were arrested and prosecuted as though they had plotted sedition. They were charged for holding the line, not for breaking it. The state’s behaviour was vindictive, not judicial. Prosecutors went along with it, and so did courts.
In a healthy democracy, such political trials would have shaken Parliament to its core. Legislators would have demanded justification for the use of emergency powers. The press would have asked precisely which law had been broken. Citizens would have debated the limits of government in times of fear, times which seem to continue just under the radar.
Not much of that happened.
Canada’s institutions have grown timid. The press is subsidized and more subservient. The courts happily defer to the administrative state. Law enforcement has learned to follow politics before principle. Academics have been lost for about generation. Under such conditions, how can citizens object to unscientific and coercive policies? What options remain when every channel of dissent—media, science, judiciary, and law enforcement—is captured or cowed?
The convoy’s protest, let’s remember, was not the first major disruption in the Trudeau years. A year earlier, Indigenous activists blocked rail lines and highways in solidarity with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to a pipeline. The blockades cost the economy millions. They were called “a national conversation.” Few arrests, no frozen accounts, no moral panic.
In 2020, Black Lives Matter marches were cheered by politicians and news anchors. Some protests were peaceful, others destructive. Yet they were treated as expressions of justice, not extremism.
Even today, pro-Hamas Palestinian demonstrations that include violence and intimidation of Jewish citizens are tolerated with a shrug. The police stand back, bring them coffee, citing “the right to protest.”
Why, then, was the Freedom Convoy treated as a crisis of state?
In a liberal democracy, protest is not rebellion. It is a civic instrument, a reminder that authority is contingent. When a government punishes peaceful protest because it disapproves of the message, it turns democracy into décor.
The trials of the convoy organizers are therefore not about law but about legitimacy. Each conviction signals that protest is permitted only when it pleases the powerful. This is the logic of every soft tyranny: it criminalizes opposition while decorating itself with the vocabulary of rights. I see this daily in Nicaragua, my native land.
The truckers’ protest revealed what the pandemic concealed. The COVID regime was unscientific and incoherent. It punished truckers who worked alone in their cabs while allowing politicians to mingle maskless at conferences. It barred unvaccinated Canadians from air travel but allowed infected citizens to cross borders with the proper paperwork. It closed playgrounds and churches while keeping liquor stores open.
These contradictions were not mistakes; they were instruments of obedience. Each absurd rule tested how much submission people would endure.
The truckers said, “Enough.” I am grateful that they did.
For that, Chris Barber (Big Red) and Tamara Lich are still being punished. Their trials have now concluded, save for possible appeals, yet their quiet defiance remains one of the few honest moments in recent Canadian history. It showed that courage is still possible, even the state seems to forbid reason.
The government’s response revealed the opposite: that fear, once politicized, is never surrendered willingly. The state that learned to rule through emergency will not soon unlearn it. They cling to its uses still.
Canada lives with the legacy of that winter today. The trials are finished, but the divisions persist. Half the country still believes the convoy was a menace; the other half thinks it was a mirror that showed how fragile our freedoms had become.
Trudeau’s government is no more, yet the spirit of his politics lingers. He did not create the divisions by accident. He cultivated them as a strategy of control. The country that left him behind is also less free, less trusting, and less united than it was before the horns sounded in Ottawa. Carney’s government is Trudeau’s heir.
The trials and sentencing measure the distance between the Canada we imagined and the one we inhabit.
The truckers’ convoy was imperfect, yet profoundly democratic. It stood for the right of citizens to say no to a government that had forgotten how to hear them. The echo of that refusal still moves down the Trans-Canada Highway. It is the sound of liberty idling in the cold, waiting for a green light that will not soon come.
This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for the abounding love and understanding in my life. I am grateful for my spirited children and their children. I am grateful for my nonagenarian father and for my siblings. I’m grateful for the legion of aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews on all sides of the family. I am grateful for loyal friendships and for my colleagues and coworkers who share the quest for a freer country. I’m grateful to my adoptive Alberta, and Albertans, also struggling to be strong and free.
I am grateful for the Truckers, wherever they came from, for their courage.
Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts, express your gratitude and support our work, consider becoming a a paid subscriber.
COVID-19
Tamara Lich says she has no ‘remorse,’ no reason to apologize for leading Freedom Convoy

From LifeSiteNews
‘To whom shall I apologize? Thousands of Canadians who stopped planning to take their own lives or were able to return to their jobs, kiss dying loved ones or have families over for Thanksgiving?’
Freedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich, reflecting on her recent house arrest verdict, said she has no “remorse” and will not “apologize” for leading a movement that demanded an end to all COVID mandates.
Lich revealed in an X post this week that in conversations with her lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, over the past few months, she told him, “I would not, and could not, express remorse as it would be dishonest and disingenuous.”
“To whom shall I apologize? The thousands of Canadians who stopped planning to take their own lives when the convoy started? To the thousands of Canadians who were able to return to their jobs? Or should I apologize to all the Canadians who can kiss their dying loved ones or have their families over for Thanksgiving?” she observed.
On October 7, Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey sentenced Lich and Chris Barber to 18 months’ house arrest after being convicted earlier in the year convicted of “mischief.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian government was hoping to put Lich in jail for no less than seven years and Barber for eight years for their roles in the 2022 protests against COVID mandates.
Interestingly, Perkins-McVey said about Lich and Barber during the sentencing, “They came with the noblest of intent and did not advocate for violence.”
In Lich’s X post, she noted that while she has “no doubt” some citizens of Ottawa “felt afraid, threatened and terrorized” by the protests, she blamed the Liberal government under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“How could they not when their mayor and politicians were labeling us as an angry mob coming to overthrow the government before we even left Alberta?” she wrote.
“Do I feel bad for these people? Of course I do. I wish no ill will upon anyone. However, it was their very own leaders who lied to them and misled them. There are citizens in Ottawa genuinely afraid of working-class Canadians, who had never met a trucker or an oil patch worker.”
Lich noted how she told her lawyer that she would “serve 100 years in prison before I will ever apologize.”
Specifically, Barber was handed an 18-month conditional sentence, with a concurrent three-month sentence for counseling disobedience of a court order that can be served in the community.
Lich was given 18 months less time already spent in custody, amounting to 15 1/2 months.
Both Lich and Barber must remain in their house for the first 12 months except for medical emergencies and certain appointments. They are allowed to work and can leave their house for certain permitted activities for up to five hours once a week. They were also given a curfew and 100 hours of community service.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Barber thanked Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis for “speaking up” in support of him and Canadians’ freedom rights after he and Lich were sentenced.
LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre offered his thoughts on the sentencing, wishing them a “peaceful” life while stopping short of blasting the sentence as his fellow MPs did.
In early 2022, the Freedom Convoy saw thousands of Canadians from coast to coast come to Ottawa to demand an end to COVID mandates in all forms. Despite the peaceful nature of the protest, Trudeau’s government enacted the never-before-used Emergencies Act (EA) on February 14, 2022.
-
Business2 days ago
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships
-
Alberta2 days ago
Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline
-
National1 day ago
Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case
-
Business2 days ago
Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy
-
Indigenous22 hours ago
Constitutional lawyer calls for ‘false’ claims to end in Canadian residential schools burials
-
Alberta13 hours ago
Premier Smith addresses the most important issue facing Alberta teachers: Classroom Complexity
-
Alberta13 hours ago
Alberta taxpayers should know how much their municipal governments spend
-
Business22 hours ago
‘Taxation Without Representation’: Trump Admin Battles UN Over Global Carbon Tax