What Now?

The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” – Marcus Aurelius.

Having reflected upon the lunacy of the past 15 months I am starting to view the entire response to SARS-CoV-2 as a sifting exercise to determine who are the collaborators and who are the dissidents. In essence, there appear to be two models for civilisation on offer. The first I call the ‘reason and compassion’ model which bases its principles on individual rights, the scientific method and empathy. The second I call the ‘fear and tragedy’ model which bases its principles on ignorance, division and malfeasance. To explain further, the first model would have allowed public debate around the various SARS-CoV-2 responses, a review of all potential treatments, a rejection of censorship, a cost-benefit analysis for all potential mitigations, outpatient care to prevent severe disease, route cause analysis to understand the problem and lessons learnt exercises to determine efficacy of implemented measures. In contrast, the second model (as implemented) allowed censorship of any opinion which countered Government advice, suppression of effective treatments, vilification of those who questioned state sanctioned guidelines (despite the various U-turns in policy – which no one appears to remember), moving goalposts, deliberate misrepresentation of statistics, false scientific statements, psychological warfare and medical coercion.

What could possibly be the motive for this madness? Over the past decade I have come to view the world through the lens of energy. As such, my reference model is Battery Earth and all the various iterations of civilisation it has accommodated. Given that our current fossil fuel based civilisation is on a descending Energy Return on Investment (EROI) curve it leads to the assumption that the economy will contract (or simplify) in the years ahead. And whilst another source may take its place (solar, nuclear, etc) it is doubtful that these technologies will be deployed at the same scale. Left to its own devices this contraction would jettison the more complex structures and organisations to focus on the core needs of the participants. However, therein lies the problem. This simplification would leave supranational institutions, such as the United Nations, World Health Organisation and World Economic Forum, redundant. A great deal of wealth, power and influence would simply disappear. And so, in my opinion, the relation between the governed and the government is being altered from one of consent to one of control, to create a situation of dependency. All to maintain the current ruling class.

As I see it, there is a conflict of values occurring at the heart of our civilisation; dependency versus dignity. The concept of dependency beautifully surmised by the World Economic Forum, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.” Until of course you say something which offends the ruling powers and find, “You’ll own nothing, and society will forget you ever existed.” Whereas dignity imposes limits on what others can do to you, such as inject you with experimental, black triangle drugs…

I can’t see any reconciliation between these two contrasting values as each acts to the detriment of the other. For one, dignity is deeply mistrusting of state power and seeks to avoid the state’s intrusion into private affairs (of any citizen). Whereas dependency necessitates a leviathan-like state for its ability to safeguard (at least in principle) the existence of its dependents. Nowhere has this chasm been more apparent (at least to me) than in the last 15 months. With disruption (due largely to our energy transition) on the horizon, I think the architects of the Great Reset have been keen to capitalise on this “SARS-CoV-2 opportunity” and assure the masses that a glorious new dawn awaits. The problem is I don’t think it will work and, given the current censorship around Covid-19, I don’t think the Klaus Schwabs of this world do either. We are really at the mercy of the natural system and the abundance (or scarcity) it provides. Grand visions and clever marketing cannot alter that. And so I have been looking into alternative strategies – one being the Greater Reset. In essence, simplified (not simple) living. I can’t see complex institutions surviving, although I am sure they will try. Such that most functions will have to be provided at the local level. Can the legal system revert back to Common Law? Can naturopathy replace large chunks of the National Health Service? I think we are going to find out… soon…

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.” – Revelation 2:10


Towards the end of my last blog post I included the following point:

“They [the youth] are also being forced to foot the bill for the whole sordid experience. Has there ever been a time when a nation treated its young so malevolently? Surely we’d have to go as far back as the brutal rituals practised in South American civilisations around the 15th century.”

I was debating the inclusion of this observation, thinking the comparison between child sacrifice in civilisations such as the Aztec Empire and how Western Civilisation currently treats its youth might sound a little hysterical. However, when I hear statements such as this:

We know that children do not tend to get bad symptoms, but they can spread the virus, so is it time to look at vaccinating the over-12s, as they are doing in the United States?” From Jeremy Hunt (a member of UK Parliament). Link

I think the inclusion was justified, as depressing as that is. The reason I make that claim is based upon the adverse effects reported in the UK Yellow Card System and also the Pfizer children’s study in relation to the Covid-19 vaccines.

Given the known harms that these Covid-19 vaccines are doing I decided to produce a risk-benefit analysis for children and send it to a children’s charity in the hope that they would act upon the information.

At the time of drafting this risk-benefit analysis it is important to note the following:

  • The Yellow Card System reports 1213 fatalities following Covid-19 vaccination. This equates to 1 death per 41,294 doses.
  • 7 children between the ages 0 – 9 have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid-19. This equates to 1 death per 1,150,365.
  • 31 children between the ages 10 – 19 have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid-19. This equates to 1 death per 242,848.

Given that children are at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than from the disease, injecting them is a form of child abuse – or, if we are being honest with ourselves, child sacrifice. I thought that the NSPCC (a major UK children’s charity) would be interested in this information so I sent it to them (full e-mail is shown at the bottom of this post). How wrong I was. After nearly a week of deliberation I received a response from them on Friday 4th June to say, “All clinical trials in the UK, including those involving children, must meet stringent legal and ethical requirements, and seek approval via an NHS medical research ethics committee. We recommend interested parties seeking information on general principles and specific cases to refer to the Medical Research Council and the NHS Health Research Authority, respectively. This is not something that the NSPCC will be engaging in further discussions about.” It was that last sentence which caused great ire, “This is not something the NSPCC will be engaging in further discussions about.” Really? What about the NSPCC’s mission statement of “Every childhood is worth fighting for”? Does it no longer apply? Naturally I removed my financial support for the organisation there and then. Instead I will be funding initiatives such as this: https://protect-children.co.uk/

Full E-mail to the NSPCC


I would like to draw your attention to the risk-benefit analysis for vaccinating children against Covid-19 that I have conducted below.

Starting with the risk which Covid-19 poses to children, the Lancet (here) shows that for the UK:

  • 7 children between the ages of 0 – 9 years have died from Covid-19 (up to 29th Jan 2021)
  • 22 children between the ages of 10 – 19 years have died from Covid-19 (up to 29th Jan 2021)

In terms of child mortality rate, the same Lancet article provides the following figure for the same age groups:

  • 0.09 deaths per 100,000 children (age 0 – 9 years); equating to 1 death per 1,150,365
  • 0.29 deaths per 100,000 children (age 10 – 19 years); equating to 1 death per 342,189

The Office for National Statistics support the exceptionally low child mortality rate from Covid-19 with their 2021 dataset (here); noting that 0 deaths were record in the 0 – 9 age group from 29th January 2021 to 14th May 2021 for Covid-19. Whilst the same dataset records an additional 9 deaths in the same period for the 10 – 19 age group. This changes the child mortality rate for the 10 – 19 age group from 1 death per 342,189 to 1 death per 242,848, noting that the mortality rate for 0 – 9 age group remains unchanged at 1 death per 1,150,365.

It is against this backdrop of exceedingly rare covid-19 fatalities in the 0 – 19 age group that the campaign to vaccinate this age group, using medical interventions which are still in Phase 3 clinical trials until early 2023 (Oxford/AstraZeneca & BioNTech/Pfizer) and are listed as black triangle medicines, must be assessed. In short, what is the risk-benefit profile of using the currently available Covid-19 vaccines to protect children from fatal outcomes posed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself?

We have established the mortality rate for the age groups defined above in relation to Covid-19. Now let us establish the risks posed by the vaccines themselves.

The UK’s Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) utilises the Yellow Card system (here) to continue, “monitoring these vaccines on an ongoing basis to ensure their benefits continue to outweigh any risks”. Having reviewed the adverse reaction data for the Covid-19 vaccines (utilising the UK Column’s analysis tool here) we find the following:

  • Fatalities = 1213
  • Paralysis and Monoparesis = 303
  • Facial Paralysis = 203
  • Blindness = 230

Focusing on fatalities alone; according to the UK government website a total of 50,089,549 doses of Covid-19 vaccine doses have been administered (3rd May 2021). Taking this number and dividing it by the number of fatalities recorded in the Yellow Card system gives a rate of 1 in 41,294 deaths per vaccine. Now if we compare this to the mortality rates identified for children above in relation to threats posed by the actual virus, it is clear that the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines outweigh the potential benefits of any protection they may provide.

Note: the MHRA state (here) “It is estimated that only 10% of serious reactions and between 2 and 4% of non-serious reactions are reported. Under-reporting coupled with a decline in reporting makes it especially important to report all suspicions of adverse drug reactions to the Yellow Card Scheme.” In short, all adverse reactions are under-reported. We should therefore assume that fatalities from Covid-19 vaccinations are higher than reported. The MHRA have updated this to state “This article was published in response to a decline in Yellow Card reporting in 2018. The reporting rate for adverse drug reactions is variable and can depend on a multitude of factors. These estimates should not be used as indicators of the reporting rate for COVID-19 vaccines, for which there is high public awareness of the Yellow Card scheme and the reporting of suspected reactions.” Although, rather curiously, the MHRA do not provide any guidance as to what estimates are appropriate for Covid-19 vaccines.

Supporting Arguments

This Risk-Benefit is supported by the following documents:

Page 25 of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 trial data (FDA document) confirms that 86.2% of the trial participants (i.e. those aged between 12 – 15) suffered an adverse reaction to a single dose of the vaccine, of which 1% of those adverse reactions were classified as “severe”.

HART Open Letter: https://www.hartgroup.org/open-letter-child-vaccination/ 

HART Child Vaccination Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249Ktihc-KI&t=46s 


It is clear from the information presented that:

  • Covid-19 vaccines do harm children (FDA document above);
  • The risk of vaccinating children (predicted 1 death per 41,294) far outweighs the potential benefits (1 death per 1,150,365 from Covid-19 age 0 – 9 group and 1 death per 242,848 from Covid-19 age 10 – 19 group);

Such that vaccinating those within the 0 – 19 age group against Covid-19 will harm more than it will benefit.

Given the mission statement of the NSPCC, “Every childhood is worth fighting for” I expect the charity to mount a robust response refuting the UK government’s ambitions to vaccinate anyone under the age of 18 for Covid-19.

Kind regards,