Brownstone Institute
The Veil of Silence over Excess Deaths
From the Brownstone Institute
Around the world, there has been a deafening silence over excess deaths from governments and the mainstream media, who not so long ago were quite fixated on the daily death toll for Covid.
On October 20th, a 30-minute adjourned debate (20 rejections later) on excess deaths in the UK House of Commons was finally secured by Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire and member of the Reclaim Party.
Bridgen began his speech to the sound of erupting cheers from the full, upper public gallery, in stark contrast to the almost empty chamber below.
Where were the hundreds of MPs who would normally sit shoulder to shoulder in the chamber? It appears, an increase in deaths of their constituents was not a pressing issue for them on that Friday afternoon.
We’ve experienced more excess deaths since July 2021 than in the whole of 2020, unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old, in other words, the excess deaths are striking down people in the prime of life but no-one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this house kindly.
Strikingly, excess deaths have been seen across all age groups, which Bridgen pointed out during his speech.
The graph below shows the pooled weekly total number of deaths for all ages, from 27 participating countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Germany (Berlin), Germany (Hesse), Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK (England), UK (Northern Ireland), UK (Scotland), and UK (Wales).
Source: EUROMOMO
According to the British Medical Journal, ‘Excess deaths are calculated as the difference between current numbers of deaths and those in a baseline year, and the excess can differ depending on the baseline and methodology used.’
This important point on how excess can differ depending on the baseline used, was raised by Bridgen.
ONS Manipulating the Data, Again
Bridgen explained:
‘To understand if there is an ‘excess’ by definition, you need to estimate how many deaths would have been expected. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) used 2015-2019 as a baseline…Unforgivably, the UK ONS (Office for National Statistics) have included deaths in 2021, as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths- as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021- by exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess deaths can be minimized.
Why would the ONS want do that?’
My early 2022 interview with Norman Fenton, professor of Risk Information Management at Queen Mary, University of London, revealed how the ONS had also been manipulating the data on deaths involving Covid-19 by vaccination status.
Fenton coauthored a paper analysing the ONS report: ‘Deaths involving COVID-19 by vaccination status, England: deaths occurring between 2 January and 24 September 2021.’
The paper concluded that the ONS was guilty of ‘systematic miscategorisation of vaccine status’ and that the COVID-19 vaccines did not reduce all-cause mortality, but rather produced genuine spikes in all-cause mortality shortly after vaccination.
The Backlog of Unregistered Deaths
Bridgen went on to highlight a critical failure in how data on deaths are being collected.
‘There is a total failure to collect (never mind publish) data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months and given the backlog, many years, before a death is formally registered. Needing to investigate a cause of death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened, is not. Because of this problem, we actually have no idea how many people died in 2021, even now. The problem is greatest for the younger age groups, where a higher proportion of deaths are investigated. This data failure is unacceptable.’
Excess Deaths in the Younger Age Groups
My investigative report into child deaths following Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine revealed there was an increase in deaths in the 0-14 age group, around the time the mRNA vaccine was authorised in children, 12-15 years of age.
Source: EUROMOMO
Bridgen drew attention to the fact that in a judicial review on a decision to vaccinate younger children, the ONS shockingly refused in court to give anonymised details (which they admitted was statistically significant) on the increase in excess deaths observed in the second half of 2021, for young adolescent males. Bridgen made the point that potentially even more excess deaths would have been observed, if those referred to the coroner had been included.
Excess Deaths Observed in Heavily Vaccinated Countries
In August 2023, fifteen EU Member States that recorded excess deaths, the highest rates were observed in Ireland (21.1 percent), Malta (16.9 percent), Portugal (12.7 percent) and the Netherlands (9.4 percent), according to Eurostat. It should be noted that, as of January 2023, Portugal had the highest COVID-19 vaccination rate in Europe having administered 272.78 doses per 100 people in the country, while Malta had administered 258.49 doses per 100.
Increase in Cardiac Arrests
Bridgen, brought attention to the fact that Dr Clare Craig, diagnostic pathologist and co-chair of HART, was the first to highlight the increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine rollout in May 2021.
Bridgen stated:
‘Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then they rose to 2,500 daily, and calls have stayed at that level since.’
Source: NHS Key statistics: England, July 2023
Category 1: An immediate response to a life-threatening condition, such as cardiac or respiratory arrest.
The Anomalies of the Pfizer Clinical Trial
Bridgen shared the fact that:
Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared to only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021, compared to 17 in the placebo group. There were serious anomalies about the reporting of deaths in this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group. That is highly suggestive of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial.
An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances among 18-39 year olds that correlated with vaccination not covid.
Australia, the Perfect Control Group
Bridgen explained that Australia had almost no covid when vaccines were introduced making it the perfect control group.
The state of South Australia had only had 1,000 cases of covid in total across the whole population by December 2021, before omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15-44 year olds, there were historically around 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With the vaccine roll-out to the under 50s, this rocketed reaching 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, which was 67% more than usual.
Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021 compared to 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase. The vaccine must clearly be the No.1 suspect in this, and it cannot be dismissed as a coincidence. Australian mortality has increased from early 2021 and that increase is due to cardiac deaths.
How the Regulators Have Failed
The regulators also missed the fact that in the Pfizer trial the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public – which was based on completely different technology. Just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public, but not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, but the MHRA has admitted that it dropped the requirement to provide this data. That means there was never a trial on the Pfizer product actually rolled out to the public, and that product has never even been compared to the product that was actually trialled.
The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia Coli and presents a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria, as well as bacterial cell walls, which can cause dangerous reactions. This is not theoretical; there is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world that the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by significant amounts of DNA which far exceeded the usual permissible levels. Given that this DNA is enclosed in a lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels would have been too high. These lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body. As well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions that have been seen, there is a serious risk of this foreign bacterial DNA inserting itself into human DNA. Will anyone investigate? No they won’t.
The BBC’s Role
How ironic that the BBC has chosen to remain utterly silent on the issue of excess deaths, despite its ardent daily coverage of the Covid death toll.
In regards to vaccine injuries, the BBC took a far more proactive role. The public broadcaster took it upon itself to collaborate with Facebook to take down the online pages of Covid-19 vaccine injury groups, by drawing attention to the fact that these groups used carrot emojis to circumvent Big Tech censors.
Many viewers of Bridgen’s speech took to social media to draw attention to the fact that the BBC also took it upon itself to plaster the debate with its own captions, in an attempt to contradict what the MP was saying.
One caption read: The NHS says COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK are safe and the best protection from getting seriously ill with the disease.
What is interesting is that Bridgen did not mention vaccines and autism during his debate but this did not stop the BBC from inserting the caption below.
‘NHS guidance states vaccines do not cause autism, there is no evidence of a link between MMR vaccine and autism.’
It must be noted that the BBC helms the Trusted News Initiative (an alliance of Big Tech and the mainstream media) set up in 2019 to combat ‘anti-vax misinformation’ in real-time. Therefore, its collaboration with Facebook to censor stories on vaccine harms; the lack of any coverage on excess deaths and the more recent captioning of Bridgen’s speech – shows just how effectively it has executed that role.
In Conclusion
Bridgen closed the debate by stating the following:
The experimental covid-19 vaccines are not safe and are not effective. Despite there being only limited interest in the Chamber from colleagues—I am very grateful to those who have attended—we can see from the Public Gallery that there is considerable public interest. I implore all Members of the House, those who are present and those who are not, to support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament—indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world—but, very sadly, I promise you it will not be the last.
Republshed from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse.
Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.
It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.
Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.
Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel.
The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy.
It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.”
By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.
“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”
The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”
In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.
Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”
This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.
The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.
The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.
From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.
Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”
The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.
These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”
The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:
“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”
Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:
Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”
(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)
In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.
Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.
Instances of censorship are growing to the point of normalization. Despite ongoing litigation and more public attention, mainstream social media has been more ferocious in recent months than ever before. Podcasters know for sure what will be instantly deleted and debate among themselves over content in gray areas. Some like Brownstone have given up on YouTube in favor of Rumble, sacrificing vast audiences if only to see their content survive to see the light of day.
It’s not always about being censored or not. Today’s algorithms include a range of tools that affect searchability and findability. For example, the Joe Rogan interview with Donald Trump racked up an astonishing 34 million views before YouTube and Google tweaked their search engines to make it hard to discover, while even presiding over a technical malfunction that disabled viewing for many people. Faced with this, Rogan went to the platform X to post all three hours.
Navigating this thicket of censorship and quasi-censorship has become part of the business model of alternative media.
Those are just the headline cases. Beneath the headlines, there are technical events taking place that are fundamentally affecting the ability of any historian even to look back and tell what is happening. Incredibly, the service Archive.org which has been around since 1994 has stopped taking images of content on all platforms. For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.
As of this writing, we have no way to verify content that has been posted for three weeks of October leading to the days of the most contentious and consequential election of our lifetimes. Crucially, this is not about partisanship or ideological discrimination. No websites on the Internet are being archived in ways that are available to users. In effect, the whole memory of our main information system is just a big black hole right now.
The trouble on Archive.org began on October 8, 2024, when the service was suddenly hit with a massive Denial of Service attack (DDOS) that not only took down the service but introduced a level of failure that nearly took it out completely. Working around the clock, Archive.org came back as a read-only service where it stands today. However, you can only read content that was posted before the attack. The service has yet to resume any public display of mirroring of any sites on the Internet.
In other words, the only source on the entire World Wide Web that mirrors content in real time has been disabled. For the first time since the invention of the web browser itself, researchers have been robbed of the ability to compare past with future content, an action that is a staple of researchers looking into government and corporate actions.
It was using this service, for example, that enabled Brownstone researchers to discover precisely what the CDC had said about Plexiglas, filtration systems, mail-in ballots, and rental moratoriums. That content was all later scrubbed off the live Internet, so accessing archive copies was the only way we could know and verify what was true. It was the same with the World Health Organization and its disparagement of natural immunity which was later changed. We were able to document the shifting definitions thanks only to this tool which is now disabled.
What this means is the following: Any website can post anything today and take it down tomorrow and leave no record of what they posted unless some user somewhere happened to take a screenshot. Even then there is no way to verify its authenticity. The standard approach to know who said what and when is now gone. That is to say that the whole Internet is already being censored in real time so that during these crucial weeks, when vast swaths of the public fully expect foul play, anyone in the information industry can get away with anything and not get caught.
We know what you are thinking. Surely this DDOS attack was not a coincidence. The time was just too perfect. And maybe that is right. We just do not know. Does Archive.org suspect something along those lines? Here is what they say:
Last week, along with a DDOS attack and exposure of patron email addresses and encrypted passwords, the Internet Archive’s website javascript was defaced, leading us to bring the site down to access and improve our security. The stored data of the Internet Archive is safe and we are working on resuming services safely. This new reality requires heightened attention to cyber security and we are responding. We apologize for the impact of these library services being unavailable.
Deep state? As with all these things, there is no way to know, but the effort to blast away the ability of the Internet to have a verified history fits neatly into the stakeholder model of information distribution that has clearly been prioritized on a global level. The Declaration of the Future of the Internet makes that very clear: the Internet should be “governed through the multi-stakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.” All of these stakeholders benefit from the ability to act online without leaving a trace.
To be sure, a librarian at Archive.org has written that “While the Wayback Machine has been in read-only mode, web crawling and archiving have continued. Those materials will be available via the Wayback Machine as services are secured.”
When? We do not know. Before the election? In five years? There might be some technical reasons but it might seem that if web crawling is continuing behind the scenes, as the note suggests, that too could be available in read-only mode now. It is not.
Disturbingly, this erasure of Internet memory is happening in more than one place. For many years, Google offered a cached version of the link you were seeking just below the live version. They have plenty of server space to enable that now, but no: that service is now completely gone. In fact, the Google cache service officially ended just a week or two before the Archive.org crash, at the end of September 2024.
Thus the two available tools for searching cached pages on the Internet disappeared within weeks of each other and within weeks of the November 5th election.
Other disturbing trends are also turning Internet search results increasingly into AI-controlled lists of establishment-approved narratives. The web standard used to be for search result rankings to be governed by user behavior, links, citations, and so forth. These were more or less organic metrics, based on an aggregation of data indicating how useful a search result was to Internet users. Put very simply, the more people found a search result useful, the higher it would rank. Google now uses very different metrics to rank search results, including what it considers “trusted sources” and other opaque, subjective determinations.
Furthermore, the most widely used service that once ranked websites based on traffic is now gone. That service was called Alexa. The company that created it was independent. Then one day in 1999, it was bought by Amazon. That seemed encouraging because Amazon was well-heeled. The acquisition seemed to codify the tool that everyone was using as a kind of metric of status on the web. It was common back in the day to take note of an article somewhere on the web and then look it up on Alexa to see its reach. If it was important, one would take notice, but if it was not, no one particularly cared.
This is how an entire generation of web technicians functioned. The system worked as well as one could possibly expect.
Then, in 2014, years after acquiring the ranking service Alexa, Amazon did a strange thing. It released its home assistant (and surveillance device) with the same name. Suddenly, everyone had them in their homes and would find out anything by saying “Hey Alexa.” Something seemed strange about Amazon naming its new product after an unrelated business it had acquired years earlier. No doubt there was some confusion caused by the naming overlap.
Here’s what happened next. In 2022, Amazon actively took down the web ranking tool. It didn’t sell it. It didn’t raise the prices. It didn’t do anything with it. It suddenly made it go completely dark.
No one could figure out why. It was the industry standard, and suddenly it was gone. Not sold, just blasted away. No longer could anyone figure out the traffic-based website rankings of anything without paying very high prices for hard-to-use proprietary products.
All of these data points that might seem unrelated when considered individually, are actually part of a long trajectory that has shifted our information landscape into unrecognizable territory. The Covid events of 2020-2023, with massive global censorship and propaganda efforts, greatly accelerated these trends.
One wonders if anyone will remember what it was once like. The hacking and hobbling of Archive.org underscores the point: there will be no more memory.
As of this writing, fully three weeks of web content have not been archived. What we are missing and what has changed is anyone’s guess. And we have no idea when the service will come back. It is entirely possible that it will not come back, that the only real history to which we can take recourse will be pre-October 8, 2024, the date on which everything changed.
The Internet was founded to be free and democratic. It will require herculean efforts at this point to restore that vision, because something else is quickly replacing it.
Authors
They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now
IRS whistleblowers confirm agencies knew the truth about Hunter Biden’s laptop
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
Committee Hearing Exposes Trudeau’s Political Spin on Foreign Interference
-
Agriculture1 day ago2024 harvest wrap-up: Minister Sigurdson
-
International2 days agoTrump victory speech: ‘Many people have told me that God spared my life for a reason’
-
RCMP1 day agoDrugs, gun, money seized as RCMP arrest 2 in Red Deer
-
International2 days agoBREAKING: Republicans retake Senate with at least 51-seat majority
-
conflict2 days agoHow the Biden-Harris admin pushed Russia into war with Ukraine
-
Alberta1 day ago39 percent increase in funding for RCMP instigates discussion about future policing for rural Alberta
-
International2 days agoTrump declared president-elect
-
Health1 day agoHow the Trump-RFK Jr. coalition could realign US politics against Big Pharma and Big Food