In his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language, George Orwell wrote: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.” That was 75 years ago and the practice of deception seems only to have amplified in the intervening years, culminating in one of the greatest scams in recorded history. This is nothing less than a pandemic of disinformation. Its purported “cure” that has us all in its grips, that has led to the systematic terror, radical censorship, restriction of democratic freedoms, engineered assent and medical experimentation imposed upon a global population from which an elite and plutocratic class has immensely benefitted can no longer be doubted. The lies are only now gradually being exposed.
I have recently come across the work of Julius Ruechel, among the most indefatigable of researchers into the government responses to COVID-19. A freelance virological sleuth whose knowledge of the intrigue and intricacies around the COVID industry is as thorough as one could wish, Ruechel is a go-to authority on the subject of the false COVID narrative that has co-opted public sentiment. He has seen through the fog of delusion and special pleading that characterizes the COVID rhetoric of the political class and its media and medical henchmen.
Ruechel has laid out clearly in a 130-page analytical study the nature of the great swindle Canada’s leading agencies, bureaus, and offices have imposed upon the public in a draconian and failing preventive strategy, at the same time accumulating power and enforcing obedience. The data “makes it crystal clear,” he reports, “why two weeks to ‘flatten the curve’ turned into a never-ending 15-month nightmare and why lockdowns as a strategy were a misbegotten fantasy that was doomed from the start.”
Recommended: Vaxxports and the Emerging Police State
Ruechel shows via government statistics that neither enclosed settings (schools, restaurants, gyms, retail stores) nor even travel account for larger community-spread outbreaks. He goes on to show, again relying on official government statistics, that 75 percent of all deaths are linked to infections in institutional settings—in particular, long-term care homes, hospitals, and prisons. The mortality rate inside Canadian institutional settings amounted to 18,275 deaths; outside these institutions the figure was 6,127 deaths. And when one considers that the 75 percent ratio arises from a “tiny population of 292,000 living inside government-controlled institutions”—the aforementioned care homes, hospitals, and prisons—as opposed to “only 25% of all deaths spread out among the 38 million Canadians living outside of government institutions,” one realizes the extent to which our leaders are responsible “for the lethal consequences of abandoning long-established pandemic protocols, which were meticulously-documented in the WHO’s 2019 pandemic planning guide.” Ruechel argues that “blaming those on the outside of the institutional barrier for the disaster happening inside is a convenient distraction that allows the government to escape accountability.”
Comparable figures would obviously apply in the U.S., as well. Over at The Pipeline, Robert Morton summarizes the data from the CDC: “80 percent of all deaths were in people aged 65 and older…who had an average of three co-morbidities” and “33 percent of all deaths occurred in nursing homes.”
Ruechel proceeds to focus on the rules and paraphernalia associated with official COVID policy. For example, as many have long known, there is no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing viral transmission. Even the WHO’s 2019 pandemic planning guidelines stated that “there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.” Masks are a function of “political lobbying, not science.”
And masks are hazardous. PJ Media’s Matt Margolis directs our attention to an anecdotal study conducted by parents on masks worn by school children showing that masks are “contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi,” including “pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria.” Additionally, “no viruses were detected on the masks.” It is comforting to note that, in a sensible juridical decision, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has ruled that mask mandates are “presumptively unconstitutional.” In any event, as the Public Health Agency of Canada warned, “Wearing a mask when you are not ill may give a false sense of security.” Masks are, essentially, like Linus’ blanket. They are a solace, not a prophylactic.
Lockdowns were an equally “misbegotten fantasy.” Indeed, a May 28, 2021, study from the University of Louisville baldly concludes: “All of the lockdowns and mask mandates had little effectiveness, if at all.” Lockdowns curtail the development of natural immunity, making it unsafe, in Ruechel’s words, to “reopen the doors.” Lockdowns “drag out the length of the pandemic, leading to thousands of unnecessary and entirely preventable deaths from COVID.” The result of this harebrained policy is that many people “are still trapped behind locked doors, either in institutions or at home.” Indeed, lockdowns do little but generate an indefinite succession of smaller seasonal waves, which is why a two-week period to “flatten the curve” has morphed over a year and a half into lockdown 1, lockdown 2, lockdown 3, and counting, like an indefinite sequence of Terminator movies.
Ruechel also reveals that “social distancing” is a fool’s errand. Any observant person must see how arbitrary the regulations are: six feet here, three feet there, no feet at many stadium-packed Stanley Cup hockey games outside of Canada. But Ruechel’s document scrupulously gives readers all the information they require concerning the absurdity of social distancing in the outdoors.
As for the vaccines, there are no longitudinal safety trials, which are supposed to conclude in 2024—three whole years down the road. As Ruechel remarks, “We are the long-term trial.” This is pretty scary stuff. He goes on: “It may be the deadliest vaccine in history… because of the terrible cost of maintaining endless lockdowns while we waited for them to arrive…By pinning our hopes on the horizon, we prevented a ring of natural immunity from forming around the pockets of vulnerable.”
Further, most of the injuries, permanent disabilities, and deaths, even among many young and middle-aged people with no history of pre-existing conditions, are legion based on reports to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, a self-described “early-warning system that detects problems possibly related to vaccines,” which relies on reports from healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. The case reports on VAERS are “eye opening and do not make for pleasant reading”—this apart from the fact that only a minute fraction of adverse events are reported.
In a subsequent study, Ruechel notes that “the range of serious and life-threatening conditions being reported are deeply alarming… How many of these injuries will result in permanent life-changing consequences?… How many will leave their victim vulnerable to developing other future medical conditions? I don’t know, but considering the range and severity of these reactions, I am not sure I would want to be the guinea pig that finds out.”
Indeed, anyone under the age of 49 who does not have pre-existing health conditions faces little to no risk of death from COVID. Thus, by default, for this group of people “the risk of death from the vaccine is more than they face from the virus itself. They have nothing to gain, only something to lose if they get vaccinated,” according to Ruechel.
Similarly, Philadelphia general surgery specialist and immunologist Hooman Noorchashm warns that “disease or blood-clotting complications… have proven deadly to some patients.” Moreover, “vaccinations in persons who have had recent infections and have recovered could re-ignite a critical inflammatory.”
The salient risk involves elderly people with co-morbidities, who must be protected and monitored. A crucial issue, Ruechel fears, is that “hundreds of millions of people around the world are being encouraged to risk their life on these vaccines without any risk of COVID death to offset.” For these people, he reiterates, “the vaccine is, quite literally, more dangerous than the virus.” The upshot is that “the known risks of getting the jab are no small matter and that the unknown and unquantifiable risks hanging over this vaccine have turned what should be a basic risk calculation into a blind gamble.”
The Citizen Petition from the Maryland Division of Dockets Management to the FDA, as if in confirmation of Ruechel’s studies, claims that the COVID-19 vaccines differ substantially from conventional vaccines, “as these novel vaccines work on the premise of gene delivery, and may therefore be considered a type of gene therapy. These gene-based vaccines involve entering the cell… to produce [a] spike protein.” In effect, the delivery system works by actually invading the cell where most “critical body activities occur… Therefore, there is a need to consider safety.”
There is no way to assess and quantify risk complications apart from knowing that these exist in alarming numbers. As Ruechel says, “The mechanism that can lead us to an objective, nuanced, and robust answer to that question is broken.” In reality, there is no such “mechanism” that can lead to genuine confidence in vaccine efficacy while there is considerable evidence that leads to vaccine hesitancy. These vaccines perform the same placebo function as masks and, as immunologist and former chair of the Department of Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi explains in frightening detail, they must be approached with extreme caution. Nevertheless, the majority of people have been stampeded into panicky compliance.
None of the data cited herewith are hypothetical or unsourced; they are embedded in official government figures, including Statistics Canada, in many distinguished studies (some mentioned in text), and in methodical surveys from competent professionals, which need only be consulted and examined to yield the relevant details that are almost entirely unknown to the general public. It is, regrettably, a docile and conformist public susceptible to the distortions broadcast and circulated by the political echelon, the collusive medical conclave and the fear-stoking media.
The strategy at work involves misdirection and manipulation of public opinion, in effect, institutional deception. Ruechel has performed a civic duty in assembling the graphs, charts, and statistical compilations from the reputable sources, many of these artifacts ironically provided by the very government whose propaganda campaign belies its own official instruments. There is no longer any excuse for cognitive oblivion.
Ruechel concludes: “The rest of us need to set aside our fears, look at the government’s own official numbers, stop listening to these propaganda artists, and remind ourselves that life is never risk-free. There are many other risks far worse than COVID, starting with the risk of being afraid to live our lives. It is time to start living again in a free and open society. The sooner we do, the sooner the vulnerable can do the same.”
When these indispensable pages have been studied and the sources and references checked, all doubt about what is the major blunder of a generation should be dispelled. Whether freedom as we once knew it pre-COVID will ever return is for many people an open question—perhaps the only thing that still remains open—in an increasingly closed society.