Canary In a Covid World: How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our World

by C.H. Klotz

For societies to progress in a cohesive manner, people need access to the truth and to be able to trust each other.

Near the end of 2022, some eminent scientists published a reanalysis of the original trials in the peer reviewed journal Vaccine. They concluded that you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the COVID mRNA vaccines; disability, life changing event, hospitalization, than you were to be hospitalized with COVID, from the very beginning. If you take just that data on its own, that means that these vaccines should never have been approved for anybody in the first place. What was the rate of serious adverse events that they found in two months? At least 1 in 800 suffered a serious adverse event.

What about the regulators? The problem is the regulators have been captured. Most of the regulators around the world and in developed nations get most of their funding from pharma. Most doctors, even senior doctors I’ve spoken to, didn’t know this. The FDA gets 65% of its funding from pharma. The MHRA in the UK gets 86% of its funding from pharma. Donald Light in the BMJ, in an investigation that exposed all these conflicts of interest in terms of funding, said, “It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organization independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.”

Bill Gates himself has made hundreds of millions from investments in these drug companies that have been producing vaccines. This is a gross conflict of interest. He shouldn’t be anywhere near the decision making process, but he is the second biggest funder to the W.H.O.

Most medical research now is funded by pharma.

Keep speaking the truth. I look at it rationally. It is even less safe to not speak the truth. Because a problem only gets bigger.

There are some clear solutions here when it comes to pharma. Although the drug industry plays an important role in developing new drugs, they should play no role in testing them. All results of all trials that involve humans must be made publicly available, and the regulators should not be taking money from industry. Medical education should no longer be funded or sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

I think the really important part of the story as it relates to COVID, is that during the experience with my daughter, I really came to understand what the term medical practice means. It’s not a clinic. It’s not a business. It’s literally doctors using their skill to practice medicine. That’s how we advance medicine.

Let me make my appeal to doctors. If you’re a doctor and you are awakened to what’s happened, if you know that it’s wrong don’t sit by the sidelines anymore. Peter McCullough and Dr. Malone and Pierre Kory and all these courageous doctors who have stepped forward to warn the public, they need help. We literally need thousands of doctors who are aware of the problem to join together. There is safety in numbers; it’s time to be honest and truthful with the American public. I’m begging doctors, I’m begging nurses to come forward, join together as one massive group and put an end to this insanity. Be loyal first to your patients and be the one to call the shots when it comes to how you care for your patients. I’m just begging doctors; you have to step up to the plate.

To summarize: there are four domains of injury—cardiovascular, neurologic, thrombotic, and immunologic. The

A Zogby survey performed last summer suggests that 15% of Americans now have some injury, disability or medical problem due to the COVID-19 vaccines.

In March of 2021, I started to raise my concerns about the vaccines, and then testified about my concerns in the Texas Senate. In May of 2021 I published a paper with 57 authors in which we set forth our serious questions about the safety of these vaccines. We sent the paper to every government agency. In June of 2022, the World Council for Health—a large body of investigators working on COVID-19— issued a call for the vaccines to be taken off the market. Then, on December 7th, 2022, I testified on a U.S. Senate panel and concluded with a call to withdraw all COVID-19 vaccines from the market due to their unacceptable safety and the harm they are causing to Americans. There has been no response from our regulatory agencies in terms of pulling these off the market. There

Vanity Fair cited peer reviewed publications, government emails and letters, and recorded public speeches by Shi and others who worked with her in Wuhan. This was real investigative journalism. The type we’ve come to expect from our best of the best, like the CBC. This is why journalism matters. It has the power to save the world. Typically a big story like this, that is both true and easily verifiable, becomes the new standard by which all major news outlets begin to speak the same truth. However, this time Vanity Fair’s explosive report was largely ignored. It was exhaustive and relevant to every human on the planet. It chronicled the Wuhan lab’s decade-long effort to create a new and deadly coronavirus that was particularly contagious to human lungs. Yet it was not adopted as the new truth by our trusted messengers of news.

the reporters almost never identified that the age of most Canadians claimed by Covid was older than their expected lifespan, or that many were already dying in hospice or palliative care wards when they first tested positive for COVID.

Bambury smeared Peters for all of Canada to hear, instead of informing us that he’s onto something. On the same day of his broadcast, Bambury or the journalists who work on his show, could have looked up on a Canadian government website to see that at least 427 Canadians were reported to have died suddenly after taking the “safe and effective” COVID vaccines that his network was vigorously promoting.

In October 2021 a Canadian doctor named Daniel Nagase started his shift at the emergency room in a hospital in rural Alberta. He found three patients growing progressively worse with symptoms of COVID-19. He administered ivermectin and all three patients improved in hours. One of them was over 90 years old and he was able to shake off the virus and get transferred back to his nursing home. After saving their lives, Dr. Nagase was fired from the hospital and has since had his medical license revoked. In its coverage of this story the CBC did not focus on the fact that Dr. Nagase had cured three hospitalized COVID patients with an inexpensive and common medicine that is proven to be effective in populations around the world. Instead, it reported that the doctor spread “misinformation” and was fired for it.

Like the stormtroopers in the Star Wars trilogy, CBC’s announcers transformed overnight from trusted truth tellers into a propaganda machine hell bent on distracting us from the origin of the virus, igniting fear, advising us not to take medicine, and selling an unproven pharmaceutical potion as the only solution to our collective conundrum. During COVID-19, the CBC transformed into a weapon of the state, aimed at its citizens.

vaccines and silence or ridicule what they deemed to be “misinformation”

It is almost impossible to rebuild trust once it is lost. The only way to recover a whisper of truly earned trust in our news media might be a criminal investigation into why they knowingly disseminated false information which betrayed their audience and caused thousands of people to put themselves in harm’s way. Only then might we find out who benefited from making journalism disappear.

There are two things that I think have been catastrophic. One is censorship; humanity and science and knowledge is based on an exchange of information, people talking, having a civil conversation. We may not agree with each other, but at least let’s talk about it so that we can both understand each other better and we can grow. But that ability to have a conversation has been completely obliterated.

Second is the false narrative that’s been propagated, “safe and effective.” People get exposed to one point of view and one point of view over and over through captured mainstream media, social media and medical journals. In this way, people aren’t exposed to dialog, and they are expose to the same narrative, which happens to be a false and deceptive narrative.

To question that natural immunity doesn’t exist is absurd because we know it’s robust, we know it exists. To question the presence of natural immunity is like questioning the presence of the sun and the moon. It’s such a basic fundamental concept in medicine and in science. The data is now clear and probably the best example is a study out of the Cleveland Clinic, a highly reputable, prestigious health care system in the U.S. The Cleveland study has shown that the unvaccinated are at a lower risk of getting COVID than the vaccinated. Then each time you get a shot, one, two, three, four, it increases your risk of getting COVID. Consider that; the medical establishment is now recommending vaccination to prevent a disease which is actually causing the disease.

We know the virus is infinitesimally smaller than the pores or holes in the mask. So to suspect that it would stop viral transmission or protect people is completely absurd. Now we have a Cochrane Review study - the gold standard - which definitively and categorically shows that masks simply do not work.

The other thing which was insane is that we prevented children from playing in the park. Once again, complete absurdity because you don’t get COVID outdoors. And kids, just because of their own innate immunity, have a far reduced risk. We prevented kids doing what kids do, playing outdoors. And we forced them to wear masks.

it is neither safe, nor effective. And Pfizer’s own data and the CDC’s own data proves that.

We know that remdesivir is a toxic compound. They tried to use it for Ebola but they had to stop the study because the Data Safety Monitoring Board deemed it a toxic, dangerous drug. We knew before COVID that it was toxic.

We know, according to the W.H.O.’s own pharmacovigilance system data, that remdesivir increases risk of kidney failure 20-fold, and increases risk of death.

We know that there are at least 20 well established interventions which limit the spread of COVID, limit hospitalization, limit death. These are simple interventions that are cheap and safe.

For example, Sweden, Denmark and even the UK now have banned vaccinating people under the age of 50 because it is so cost ineffective, with so many adverse events. And yet we are still vaccinating children in the U.S.

Even more profoundly disturbing however, is vaccinating pregnant women. Pregnant women have always been considered highly vulnerable. You don’t experiment with medications in pregnant women. We learned this from the thalidomide disaster. We know that using any medication in pregnancy, particularly the first and second trimester, is always a hazardous intervention. So here we were vaccinating women with an untested vaccine.

the FDA and CDC continues to insist it’s safe in pregnancy. Whereas we know from Pfizer’s own data, the spontaneous miscarriage rate in vaccinated women was 84%. So the vaccine was more effective in terminating a pregnancy than the abortion tablet.

The data is stunning. It shows in terms of menstrual abnormalities in women that the risk with this COVID vaccine is increased 1000-fold. Not double, by 1000.

Informed consent for a medical procedure is such a basic human right. It’s part of the Helsinki Agreement. After the Nuremberg trials, it became such a fundamental concept that people should have informed consent that when it comes to their bodies, true informed consent, not deceptive consent where Big Pharma manipulates the consent form or is not truthful. Those rights have been eroded. That’s the scariest part of this; that basic human dignity, human freedoms, human rights, human democracy are being eroded for some other nefarious agenda.

The biggest problem is that the FDA regulates medicine, but they’ve taken it a step further. They think they are now in the business of telling doctors how to practice medicine, which is far beyond their charter. Part of the problem is the conflict of interest. There’s this rotating door; people work for pharma, they go to FDA, they work for FDA, they go to Big Pharma. So the conflicts of interest between the FDA and Big Pharma is truly astonishing.

We need to reform, if not scrap the CDC, the FDA and the NIH, because they’re all captured.

We were arguing that the diversion of attention from other vital medical priorities was quite shortsighted, and that there was an alternate strategy, focused protection, that could also have better protected older people from the disease. If we had been allowed to make that argument clearly, if we had not been suppressed by the government, by the university that I work at, or news organizations that basically put out propaganda, we would have won that argument. We had better science. We had the better argument regarding the balance of harms. We had the better understanding of who was actually at risk of COVID.

These one hundred people that signed the letter didn’t understand the evidence as well as Scott did. These were colleagues of mine, people I’ve written papers with, and people I respected. I called one of them and asked him why he signed the letter. He said he hadn’t taken a very close look at it. There was tremendous social pressure to sign, and even junior people who didn’t have tenure were scared that if they didn’t sign, what would happen to their tenure?

We were already having legitimate people with legitimate credentials that didn’t agree with the lockdown consensus. There wasn’t a consensus. There was never a consensus. That was an illusion created by Tony Fauci and a small number of incredibly powerful people.

Francis Collins, the head of the National Institute of Health, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling me, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, the three primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, fringe epidemiologists.

Martin Kulldorff is probably the best biostatistician working in vaccine safety today. He designed the statistical infrastructure that the FDA and the CDC uses to track vaccine safety. I had used his methods before the pandemic, even before I met him or knew about him. Sunetra Gupta, is essentially the professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, an incredibly brilliant mathematician and epidemiologist. Just before the pandemic, she was working on developing a universal flu vaccine, a vaccine that you don’t have to update every year. She is an incredibly impactful scholar who’s had a career at the center of epidemiology.

It reminds me of the McCarthy era back in the 1950s. Actually, that’s what this era feels like. It’s like a strange suppression of dissidents by the government that is so sure that it’s right, that it feels okay to do this. The trends blacklist made sure that whenever I did a Tweet, the broader Twitter audience wouldn’t see it. I felt like I was reaching an audience, because I had 100,000 followers, but I didn’t know that I had no chance of actually accomplishing what I wanted to accomplish by going on Twitter, which is to tell the broader public that there was something deeply wrong with the COVID policy.

What I found out during my visit there at Twitter headquarters is that I was actually placed on the blacklist the very day I joined Twitter.

That came about because government actors were involved at the highest levels of federal bureaucracy telling social media companies what ideas to censor and who to censor.

But the line between that and suppressing scientific discussion, suppressing policy discussion should have been a bright red line that never should have been crossed. The government agencies essentially decided to treat scientific debate on COVID policy as if we were dissidents who were on the other side of the government, as if they were just like those international terrorists in some sense. They thought it was okay to suppress those kinds of people and those kinds of ideas.

the conclusion I take away from that is that this censorship activity killed people.

we heard all these things like we can’t have free speech during the pandemic. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Ironically, had the First Amendment actually been in place during the pandemic, it would have saved lives, would have led to less damage and destruction with fewer people dead.

The de facto policy now for respiratory virus pandemics going forward into the future is the policy that we followed, this disastrous policy that didn’t protect us against COVID, and that led to all the lockdowns.

You have a relatively small number of very powerful science bureaucrats who surround themselves with people that won’t tell them that they’ve gone wrong. That’s why that fringe epidemiology thing is so telling. You have these outside experts telling you you’re wrong, “They must be fringe, because our group thinks it’s right.” They thought they were right. They thought they were so right that they could exclude outside voices. There was a doubling down as the evidence started getting worse and worse about the policies they suggested, or that their reading of the science is wrong. It’s very difficult for powerful people to say, “Yes, we got it wrong,” and change their minds. I’ve seen a few, but it’s very, very rare that it happens.

The problem is that you have someone like Tony Fauci going around on TV in a sort of avuncular way conveying to the world that he is some knowledgeable guru who can tell the difference between true and false unerringly, even when he changes his mind five minutes later, and even though the things that he’s saying are not connected to actual science. It has a tremendous influence on the minds of people and we have to figure out systems not to allow that to happen.

The key mechanism to guard against what we’ve gone through is to allow a very large diverse set of voices to be heard, and not allow the government’s power to render scientists that disagree with the government off to the fringe. We must permit dissent. The scientific process involves debate and discussion.