The University of Almería, in Spain, recently released a report showing that a vial of the COVID-19 concoction (AKA vaccine) contained a “mesh of folded translucent flexible sheets” of graphene oxide. Many people are now speculating that repeated injections of this secret superconductor ingredient will incrementally transform humanity into cybernetic organisms. Such a fear is not totally unfounded, as graphene oxide, a man-made nanotechnology, is currently being used in animal-machine interface experiments. But is such a threat still more fiction than science?

The merging of man and machine has long been depicted in science fiction as the pinnacle of evil. Most popular are probably the Borg (pictured above on the right). In 1989, I was eleven-years-old when they first tried to assimilate the crew of the Starship Enterprise in season two of Star Trek: The Next Generation. For the following week, I had nightmares about this race of robotic zombies, linked together by a vast wireless hive mind, droning on with their monotone mantra about resistance being useless.

Of course, prior to the Borg, we had Darth Vader (pictured above in the center). In 1977, he debuted in the original Star Wars film. This asthmatic cyborg quickly became an iconic villain. More machine than man, he lacked empathy, slaughtering children, blowing apart planets and even cutting off his son’s saber hand (so that Luke, too, could have a cybernetic appendage just like Dad).

Long before Vader, however, were the Cybermen, first introduced in season three of Doctor Who in 1966 (pictured above on the left). This sorry lot of humanoids slowly replaced their body parts (much like the Tin Man in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) until they were nothing more than heartless, monsters of stiffly walking steel (with a bizarre allergy to gold).

If the COVID vaccines do contain graphene, is this the first step towards such a transhumanist future for man? After all, the cofounder and chief executive of inBrain (a European nanotech company in Barcelona), Carolina Aguilar, told Sifted magazine that graphene’s “durability, electrical conductivity and longevity make it a perfect candidate for brain implanted technology.” So far, however, inBrain’s experiments seem to offer nothing more impressive than a wireless way of detecting epileptic seizures in sheep.

The idea that any graphene oxide content in the vaccine will lead to human brains merging with the internet—or otherwise lead to enhanced mental or physical abilities—appears still in the realm of science fiction. If such possibilities did exist, Apple could openly market them, with millions of iPhone-addicted users lining up for such an implant (no matter what the risk). Instead, like James Corbett said in an interview with the Coronavirus Investigative Committee, such claims of cyber-potential are probably more charlatan than science. An enticement for some and a new operation of psychological terror for many.

Instead, as Ricardo Delgado Martin, founder and director of Quinta Columna, says in an interview with Prof Michel Chossudovsky, the real concern regarding graphene oxide in much more crude. As we’ve already seen from over 10,000 deaths reported to the CDC, the vaccine (one way or another) is toxic to the humans. Wireless technology, rather than yoking a man to the internet, would probably accentuate the toxic effects of a graphene component (which might serve as an antenna).

Fortunately, as Martin states (and brain implant companies bemoan) human bodies are rather good at eliminating graphene oxide. In particularly, glutathione (which is produced in the liver and available through plant foods) is a well recognized antioxidant.

Therefore, even if your neighbor did get the COVID injection, it might take nothing more sophisticated than a healthy lifestyle to eliminate graphene oxide from his or her body. In other words, graphene is a toxin. The fact it is manmade may make it compatible with computers, but all the more easily rejected by flesh.

So, best not to get the jab. And, as Martin states in the interview, don’t wear the medical masks or let them ram a PCR swab up your nose. These too, have been found to contain graphene oxide (see the Health Canada Advisory).

Graphene oxide may even be in the air via chemtrails or other forms of pollution. Yet another reason to breathe through one’s nose (as taught in Patrick McKeown in his book The Breathing Cure). Furthermore, skip the ten-minute walk with the dog, and build up to an hour’s run (with the mouth closed) each day, to really get your liver in antioxidant overdrive (see Patrick McDougall’s Born to Run). Be sure to get enough sleep, as most detoxification takes place when we slumber (as explained in Matthew Walker’s book Why We Sleep). Eat healthy, skip the junk food and avoid the vices (as advised in Dr. Alan Goldhamer’s The Pleasure Trap).

If nothing else, try a 24- or 36-hour fast once a week on distilled water (as outlined in the classic book The Miracle of Fasting by Paul Braggs). Fasting is a time-tested way to detoxify that is not only free but will save you money.

Lastly, please remember that resistance is never useless; and your neighbour will probably not be assimilated.

Alas, I am writing a dystopian love story, not a dystopian horror novel. Before putting paint brush to canvas, Jordan had promised that, upon seeing the final painting, if I didn’t think it was suitable for the cover we’d try another one.

On a side note: Jordan has since sold the painting, titled Safe and Sanitized, and offers copies as high-quality prints, greeting cards, and even T-shirts. Andrew Brennan, a reader from Toronto (currently enjoying asylum in Texas), sent in this photo:

Andrew even bought one for his wife. How romantic!

“The cuffed wrists and the sterility of a bleached, masked skull,” wrote Andrew in an email, “encapsulate perfectly what lockdowns and endless mask mandates are truly all about.”

Sadly, it wasn’t what the novel is all about. So, Jordan and I headed back the (literal) drawing board.

Jordan was keen to try another still life (or was it a still death?). Fearing that he might present me next with a dismembered hand chained to a hand sanitizer, I wrote him in an email:

Novel covers using still life (rather than characters or scenes from the story) are common among “literary” works. Much Ado About Corona is clearly not a literary novel. (And, quite frankly, I feel a lot of literary novels are like modern art. I’ve no clue what they are saying.)

Much Ado About Corona is classic storytelling. You don’t need to decode each line. It’s not a poem packaged as a novel. While it certainly contains several wallops of metaphor and moments of poetic prose, it’s not a literary work by the current expectations of readers. I think a literary cover will only disappoint “literary” readers (while repelling the “genre” readers).

Putting aside skeletal props, Jordan and I continued to brainstorm and sketch ideas for the cover. We aimed for an image that summed up the main theme and elements of the story without being cluttered. Not easy! At one point, we were ready to give up.

Then, one cold winter day, while waiting for my son in the foyer of his piano teacher’s home studio, an image appeared in my mind. I sketched it in my notebook and typed up an email to Jordan upon returning home:

How about this: Foreground, close up, Stef and Vince’s hands (and wrists) holding each other. Over the V shape (like from the chapter “V is for Vincent”) of the interlocking hands, in the distance, you can see Constable MacKenzie in a black OPP uniform, black winter hat, black mask, approaching, possibly snow falling in the distance. That would cover everything: The mask and cop would represent the dystopian genre of fear. And the hand holding, the oppositional love genre.

The next morning, Jordan (who is a bit of a night owl and three time zones behind me) had this charcoal sketch waiting in my inbox:

On the left, he explained, is the “bad” priest from the novel (there’s a “good” one, too); on the right is a nurse—both armed with hand sanitizers.

I wasn’t too keen about the additional figures. And the squirt bottles weren’t working for me. But everything else I liked. I suggested keeping just the one cop (Constable Justin T. MacKenzie, the “villain” of the story) and the two hand-holding protagonists (Vince and Stefanie). Jordan responded with:

My only criticism here is that [such a concept] represents two against one which lessens the intimidation factor of Constable Mackenzie as he is outnumbered. Obviously that doesn’t really matter, police are armed and they have the full force and brutality of the state behind them—which makes them plenty intimidating in any number. But still, it doesn’t register to be quite as intimidating at first glance. 

We came to the compromise that he would initially render a painting with just the one cop. After scanning and saving that first rendition, he would then try adding other figures.

Next post, I’ll share with you what he sent me and the renditions that followed.

…I’ve been recalling another “dystopian love story” I saw about fourteen years ago.

One Christmas, my brother Mark gifted me the 2002 TV series Firefly (on DVD). All fourteen episodes! Not that all fourteen episodes were ever broadcast. Firefly was cancelled after the eleventh episode, according to Screenrant, because people were off watching or doing something else whenever it was airing.

Of course, it didn’t help that FOX TV censored the two-hour premier. Instead, they began with episode two and then continued to air the rest out of order. To further ensure the show had no chance, FOX scheduled it for Friday nights (considered the “death slot” by the network).

Despite FOX TV’s neglect, Firefly survived. As Beth Elderkin writes in Gizmodo…

It became so popular, in fact, that Universal Studios green-lighted this cancelled TV show for a $39-million movie, called Serenity.

Call me a conspiracy theorist (you wouldn’t be the first) but you only have to look at the premise for Firefly to understand why major networks would want to suppress its content; and why it would develop such a devoted following.

Typically assigned the sub-genre of a “space western,” Firefly captures the fierce independent feeling of the wild west days, even though it plays out 500 years in the future. And instead of the American frontier, it’s set in a far-flung star system.

As it happens, in the year 2517, the only two remaining superpowers are the United States and China, now fused into a highly centralized government known as the Alliance. Everybody speaks English; but curses in Mandarin.

Such a future is hinted at in the The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Lockdown Fraud letter which suggests “the possibility that the entire ‘science’ of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it.”

Of course, America and China would never merge. That’s pure speculative fiction. Never in even 500 years….

Anyway… like any historical communist regime, the futuristic Alliance engenders a clearly delineated society: The wealthy live on fertile inner planets and moons, equipped with advanced technology in stark contrast to the outer, drought-ridden, half-terraformed worlds, where pioneers eek out a living using eighteenth-century plows, horses and buggies.

Such a scenario, many are predicting, could be our future, wherein millions, through lockdowns, are driven into subsistence living; or where the unvaccinated are cut off from supply chains and forced into Amish-like communities.

Between these two extremes, the show focuses on the eclectic and nomadic nine-member crew of a small “Firefly-class” spacecraft, called Serenity. These renegades sustain themselves largely by “stealing from the rich and selling to the poor,” as they cater to a black market (operating largely on the outer, rugged worlds).

Such piracy reminds me of the emerging underground world of “non-essential” businesses operating under the radar of lockdown restrictions (you know, the secret pilate classes, hair-stylists making house calls and Bible groups meeting in basements).

In the bonus disc to the Serenity film, producer Joss Whedon predicts: “Nothing will change in the future: technology will advance, but we will still have the same political, moral, and ethical problems as today.” 

The overarching totalitarianism of the fictional Alliance demonstrates how too much government easily leads to anarchy. For example, those on the fringe of the star system rely on their own conscience to act as judge of what is right and wrong.

Such do-it-yourself ethics is reflected in the Serenity crew. Not only is it made up of good-hearted thieves, but also the odd mix of a celibate Christian monk and a not-so-celibate prostitute. And, no, they don’t get together…

In fact, they’re considered the “respectable” members of the crew; along with a fugitive physician named Dr. Tam. No, not that Dr. Tam…

The young doctor, in particular, exemplifies the type of moral dilemmas that might arise under such a technocratic government. Simon had had a promising career ahead of him within the upper class worlds of the Alliance. But his conscience got the better of him after he discovered the government was conducting experiments on the body and mind of his younger sister…

Not that our governments today — perpetuating health measures prescribed by the Chinese Communist Party — would ever do something so diabolical as experiment on youngsters…

Fortunately, Dr. Simon Tam’s love for his sister is stronger than his fear of big government. Fraternal care is beautifully depicted in the fourteen episodes (and final movie) as Simon Tam rescues his tortured sister, and abandons his privileged lifestyle, so they can live as hunted criminals, on a pirate ship, on the fringe of the solar system…

As I see it, at its heart, Firefly, like my novel Much Ado About Corona, is a dystopian love story. Both are about sacrificing one’s security in an oppressive society to save a loved one. Indeed, for many, one’s own freedom and well-being is not enough to motivate them to oppose tyranny. As Firefly’s Captain Reynold puts it…

In my novel, the protagonist, Vince McKnight, opens with these words in the prologue:

It was that summer of 2020 (when it seemed I had slipped into a parallel dimension) that I met her. The lion who would roar at the coming darkness and pull my trembling limbs out from under my shell. She would drag this turtle charging forward into the corona madness that had taken hostage of the masses’ souls, minds and hearts. 

But not my heart. 

That I had given to her. Unwillingly. Reluctantly. 

She who would deny me the solace of conformity and the novocaine of compliance. She who would have me face all the uncertainties of life and the certainty of death.

In the end, I believe freedom is an expression of love. For the opposite of love is fear. And fear of death is driving the masses to call upon lawmakers to restrict our freedom. Many, not afraid of the virus, are often still fearful of abuse from their government and neighbours.

But when we see government abusing and threatening those we love — through lockdown-induced poverty and depression — then our hearts conquer our mind’s short-sighted trepidations. For love gives us courage to “face all the uncertainties of life and the certainty of death.”

The following is the third in a series of interviews with a nurse who works in a hospital on the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario. She has provided sufficient evidence, and links to public records, to satisfy me that she is indeed a registered nurse working for over a decade in multiple Canadian hospitals, serving both in the emergency room and intensive care unit. To protect her identity, position and family, details about her and her place of work have been changed or omitted, without altering her message. In this interview, we focus on her frontline perspective of the current situation in her hospital during a supposed third wave of COVID-19 and related variants.

JOHN: How would you describe the current situation in the hospitals that you work in?

NURSE ANDREA:  It seems like there might be an actual surge of COVID patients. Not a catastrophe, and we’ll be fine, but urban hospitals are seeing more of a “wave” of acute respiratory illness now compared to any time in the last year. This puts pressure on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and creates a spillover effect of sick people into the other inpatient acute care units.

JOHN: So after a year of working far below capacity, we are finally seeing hospitals starting to get busy again?

NURSE ANDREA: The first wave was barely a ripple last spring. The second wave during fall and winter put some pressure on the ICUs, akin to typical flu season. The recent third wave has resulted in some ICUs getting maxed out with ventilated patients. Some non-ventilated patients who might typically require ICU are being managed on regular hospital wards.

JOHN: Do you think people are sick with the so-called “variants?”

NURSE ANDREA: They say it’s the mutant strains. Certain areas are seeing a wave of endemic illness and it fits with the pandemic narrative we’ve been talking about all year. My hospital has received some intubated patients from the hotspots in Toronto.  

JOHN: Is it normal for you to see intubated patients being transferred to your hospital?

NURSE ANDREA: It is not typical to have critically ill, ventilated patients transferred to my hospital from higher-level centres. But it’s not unheard of. I’m not sure why it’s happening now — other than there is some truth to the official narrative that a novel viral infection is sweeping through populations, like in Toronto and Peel, where it’s most likely to be transmitted in settings like industrial warehouses and more densely packed urban and suburban dwellings.

JOHN: Are you seeing more younger patients with flu-like symptoms?

NURSE ANDREA: Anecdotally, my experience does correspond with the claims that younger people are presenting with respiratory trouble.  Typically ethnic minority, late middle-aged men in their 50s and 60s.  Usually, a whole family has gotten sick but the father is hit the worst. My observation is consistent with the macro data across the world as shared by the CDC. 

JOHN: Why do you think people are suddenly getting sicker?

NURSE ANDREA: I ask these patients how they believe the virus entered their house to infect everyone, and most claim to have no idea. They claim they’ve been doing everything they were told to do by the health authorities, like masking and social distancing.  

Anecdotally, a lot of descendants from Africa (blacks) and South Asians (from Pakistan and India) are getting very sick. This possibly relates to their special vulnerability to vitamin D deficiency living in northern climates and high rates of underlying disease like diabetes and high blood pressure.  

My theory is these people have been made extra vulnerable because of the depression and forced sedentarism of lockdown. The forced humid microbial traps on their faces we call masks likely don’t help either.

JOHN: Is this surge all serious respiratory cases?

NURSE ANDREA:  Not at all. For months, emergency was vastly underutilized but now I notice people come to the hospital for minor complaints. So this is adding pressure to the hospital system. In some cases, it seems like people are bored and looking for something to do, so they come to the hospital for a pulled muscle or stubbed toe. In many cases, their family doctor or nurse practitioner is only seeing people over a computer screen so they are forced into a crowded emergency room to get actual healthcare.

I’m not sure why so many family doctors are not seeing patients in real life and forcing their patients to go to the emergency room for minor complaints they would typically deal with in their office. I know this sounds harsh and judgemental, but I think it’s a combination of laziness, cowardice, and obsequious deference to public health authority telling them to deliver healthcare over a screen or telephone. 

JOHN: How, exactly would you describe the ICU situation at the moment?

NURSE ANDREA:  Busy. Lots of staffing demands. But ICU capacity is a lot more flexible than we think.

There are hard limits to capacity, such as the number of beds, ventilators, and trained staff. However, frontline clinicians are highly adaptable to crises, and not every clinician treats the same situation in the same way.  Consider the decision to intubate a patient. Some doctors like to intubate early, while others will essentially wait until the patient is crashing. The doctor who delays intubation may discover that the patient didn’t need intubating after all. So in some cases, resource limitation might be a good thing. 

JOHN: How would you explain such radically different approaches to the use of a life-threatening procedure?

NURSE ANDREA: One of the drivers of early intubation can be the anxiety level of the staff. But one thing we’ve learned with COVID is that many patients survive without being intubated. I’ve seen many patients that would have been guaranteed a bed in ICU —based on the same clinical parameters used in the past — nowadays do fine with a little patience from the staff and rapid deployment of other therapies that work.  

As an aside, I think one of the reasons some patients deteriorate in hospital and require ICU is due to the lack of family support.

JOHN: How many of these ICU patients have genuine severe respiratory disorder?

NURSE ANDREA: In emergency, I am seeing people present with rapid breathing and low oxygen saturation. These symptoms correspond with X-rays showing diffuse inflammatory change in the lungs. The proverbial “ground glass” picture you’ve probably heard about in the media.

JOHN: So there is definitely a rise in cases of patients with COVID symptoms?

NURSE ANDREA: Yes, there’s definitely more pressure on the acute care hospital system. I haven’t seen this for the whole year. It’s interesting how this is happening now.

JOHN: Of course, according to a January 22, 2020 CBC News article, hospital gridlock — with beds in hallways and conference rooms — had become a routine reality in many of Ontario’s hospitals long before COVID-19.

NURSE ANDREA: Yes, we’ve had a year to meaningfully change the system so we wouldn’t have to resort to lockdown. But it’s like we’ve learned nothing. It’s an outrage, in my opinion. It’s almost like lockdown is the desired outcome, as fixing the so-called hospital capacity problem would make lockdown unnecessary. That’s assuming lockdowns work toward the purported end of mitigating viral illness, which they don’t, hence we are seeing this surge despite living in one of the most heavily locked down jurisdictions in the world.

JOHN: Do you think that these symptoms are being caused by a virus?

NURSE ANDREA: I have no other explanation for what’s causing these symptoms other than a virus. Granted, since the onset of COVID, I’ve become more open to alternative explanations about the nature of what we call “viral illness” because so much about what’s going on does not add up.  

JOHN: What’s not adding up?

NURSE ANDREA: For example, I’ve spent the majority of my adult life immersed in illness in hospitals, presumably surrounded by viral pathogens. How is it possible then that I hardly ever get sick? In the last year I’ve been exposed to tons of people with a virus that is supposedly so transmissible we need to shut down society, but I have not gotten sick. Even under conditions where COVID is most highly transmissible, such as with aerosol-generating procedures like intubation and high-flow oxygen therapies, myself and all my colleagues doing the same are still standing, unscathed. PPE can’t be the only explanation because we know the virus passes right through and around it. 

I spoke to one nurse who told me she secretly and deliberately goes into the rooms of highly infectious COVID patients, removes her mask and takes deep breaths in an attempt to develop her own immunity, and has never shown any symptoms. Personally, I wear the least PPE possible.

Up until this last year, I never wore a mask in the presence of patients with viral-induced acute respiratory illness; but I never acquired illness at a rate higher than people who are not exposed to viruses in the same way. 

JOHN: Why do you think the big city hospitals are seeing an increase in patients, while rural communities are not?

NURSE ANDREA: It makes sense if you follow the logic of viral spread being greater among greater concentrations of people. You have more ethnic minorities and people at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder whom we know are more affected by COVID, as we discussed earlier.

JOHN: Would you say that all of the patients currently in ICU actually require ICU?

NURSE ANDREA: Currently, I would say yes, for the most part. But in normal times, ICU routinely has non-ICU patients. Sometimes this is due to a lack of beds to discharge the patients, too. Other times, this is because the ICU doctor doesn’t get paid as much if there are no patients in the ICU.  There has always been structural incentives to keep the ICU near capacity. 

For years, most hospitals run at 90-110% capacity. Look at the peak in the 2018 flu season. Look at January 2020. Way higher than anything during COVID, where the hospital has been sitting at 60-80% capacity throughout the last year.

JOHN: Can you talk more about how limited ICU capacity is in an Ontario hospital?

NURSE ANDREA: I think it’s important to emphasize that, at baseline, critical care capacity is always on the cusp of overwhelm. In my first interview, I mentioned how a ten-bed ICU could have nine patients, hence being at 90% capacity. Discharging two patients would bring it down to 70% capacity. Conversely, a marginal shift in demand of three patients could send an ICU from 70% capacity, essentially underwhelmed, to being completely overwhelmed in a matter of minutes.  

Under normal circumstances, all it would take is two simultaneous code-blue events in a hospital, or a multiple casualty accident near the hospital to cause overwhelm.  

Imagine a house near the hospital where multiple people overdose at the same time on opioids or alcohol, all needing to be rushed to the hospital for critical care services. All these scenarios, and more, represent a risk for hospital overwhelm. If they do happen, frontline clinicians rapidly adjust and adapt to accommodate these situations.

JOHN: Why is critical care capacity as low as it is considering the chronic risk of overwhelm?

NURSE ANDREA: The reason is that it is extremely expensive to maintain critical care capacity. The government deliberately limits the number of critical care beds as de facto rationing. The more you make critical care available, the more it gets used. While the supply of critically ill patients creates demand for critical care services, the supply of critical care services can also create the demand for critical care services. A healthcare administrator once told me that when it comes to hospitals, “if you build it, they will come.”  

Ask any ICU nurse and they will tell you: the difference between an overwhelmed ICU and one that is under control can be determined by the particular doctor working that week. Some doctors will inherit a bunch of empty beds from the previous doctor and rapidly start filling up the ICU with non-ICU patients while the nurses scratch their heads saying, “Does this patient need to be in ICU? What if there’s a code blue and we need this bed for that patient?”

Nursing organizations are also to blame for their rent-seeking behaviour.  The Ontario Nurse’s Association (our union) has lobbied hard to limit nurse-to-patient ratios in Ontario ICUs to among the lowest in North America.  They argue it’s for patient safety, but it’s also a means of artificially limiting critical care labour capacity to leverage for more union-dues paying RNs[,] when there’s no reason an unlicensed caregiver can’t provide delegated help. The union and Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) has lobbied to prohibit unregulated support workers from helping in the ICU.

JOHN: Are you seeing any correlation between the increase in hospitalization and adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine?

NURSE ANDREA: Yesterday, a patient came in by ambulance who lost consciousness five minutes after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. The bloodwork showed a very low white blood cell count. I was working with that same doctor referenced in my last interview. The doc dismissed any relationship between the low blood count and the vax. He said: “Bah, it’s just incidental!”

JOHN: I would understand if it was five days later, claiming the vaccination was “incidental” — but to lose consciousness after only five minutes? How could a doctor exercise such cognitive dissonance?

NURSE ANDREA:  Like I said in a previous interview, clinicians are biased toward the efficacy of our interventions. I would go further to say we are even blinded by lust over the supremacy and efficacy of our interventions.

The whole idea of forced vaccination, vaccine passports, and all this stuff is not new or unique. It’s deeply embedded in the medical tradition. In many ways, I think the institution of medicine as such, right down to the way many doctors practice, is fundamentally at war with the concept of individual autonomy.

JOHN: Thank you very much for providing this frontline perspective of the situation in the “epicentre” of Ontario’s supposed corona mutant variant pandemic.

NURSE ANDREA: I sincerely thank you again for giving me this platform to share my thoughts and perspective.  The truth will win out in the end.

Back in February, during our last lockdown, one cold morning, I found myself on the frozen surface of Lake Victoria, down the street from my home in Stratford, Ontario. What brought me out on the ice? First-hand research for my forthcoming novel, Much Ado About Corona.

Being that the story is set in a fictional town along the French River (on the border between Northern and Southern Ontario), I felt it would not be complete without at least one or two chapters involving ice hockey. So I grabbed my skates (purchased second hand in 1994) and (instead of going for my usual 7km morning run) I ran down the road to the lake.

For the past few winters the lake hasn’t frozen long enough for ice skating. This year we had about six or eight weeks of solid ice. Which worked out well, considering our tyrannical government locked down the skating rinks.

So why am I researching ice skating for a book about a fake coronavirus pandemic? Well, while the novel’s goal is to awaken people to the COVID-19 hoax that is being perpetrated upon humanity, it’s also critical the novel entertains. “Ice and Isolation” and “Free in the Frozen Now” ended up being two of the most fun chapters in the book, as they unfold around Canadians most loved sport.

I must admit, however, I’m not much of a hockey fan. I don’t watch sports. Watching other people have fun isn’t for me. Growing up, and being half-blind, I gravitated towards less visually-challenging sports like running, swimming, and skating (whether on two sharp pieces of metal or rollerblades). What I was never great at, however, was stopping on skates.

As I dived into hockey research for the novel, I ended up reading many different instructions for stopping. So I was eager to try them out with with my forty-year-old pair of ice skates. When I arrived at the lake, people had already cleared off several rectangular ice rinks.

Well, my ice skating research didn’t work out so well, but not for any lack of skill on my part. After about forty minutes on the ice, the elderly skates literally started to crack and fall apart while on my feet. I tightened the laces around the fractured plastic, but to no avail. In another ten minutes, the skates were declared deceased by a flock of honking geese overheard:

In the book, Save The Cat! Writes a Novel, by Jessica Brody, she talks about how 20-50% of a great novel, normally in the middle (or second act), is composed of “fun and games”:

This is where we see the hero in their new world. They’re either loving it or hating it. Succeeding or floundering. Also called the promise of the premise, this section represents the “hook” of the story (why the reader picked up the novel in the first place).

Much Ado About Corona plays true to that maxim. Its main characters are forced to rebel against the new normal world we were all thrown into last year. The ice hockey chapters are only but one example of the varied “fun and games” that unfold in its pages — including confrontations with the police, restaurant masking wars with the local mayor and “breaking into” a long-term care home.

Of course, such conflicts are only easily seen as “fun and games” for the reader. For those going through them it’s harder to see any fun or games.

Last year, for example, we had a situation in Calgary, where cops almost tasered a young man for skating on a local ice rink. More typical, thousands of restaurants owners have lost their livelihood. And the situation in nursing homes continues to be horrific. But, in many cases, such horror is because we aren’t playing the game. Most people are sitting back as spectators.

Pastor Coates, however, fought back when the Alberta government tried to ban people from attending his church services. He ended up spending 35 days inside Edmonton’s maximum security Remand facility. But, listening to an interview with him, after his release, it doesn’t sound like he’s beaten down. Instead, he states he would do it again if he had to. He’s surrendered to playing the game.

It’s odd how we want a movie or novel to be full of unexpected twists and turns, tension and conflict, but then flee from it in our own lives. Indeed, one of the bestselling dystopian novels of recent times has been The Hunger Games — a story about children transported to a wilderness arena and forced to fight to the death. Why don’t we see the COVID-19(84) arena we have been put into with the same kind of detached amusement a reader or moviegoer enjoys?

As Curtis Stone, of From the Field TV, told James Corbett in a March interview on The Corbett Report:

I always say: it looks like things are going crazy but… enjoy it. Have fun. Be happy. Because if you’re miserable and the world’s going to sh*t you might as well enjoy it and have fun. 

So it is my hope that the Much Ado About Corona novel not only wakes people up to the hoax but also inspires them to action. If we are going to win these COVID Games, we need to play the game. Largely, I believe, at a local level. Not so much on the internet. In future posts, I’ll share more about the “fun and games” I have been having in my local community, as I try to do my part to find a happy ending to this dystopian novel we have all been forced to be characters in.

In a recent episode of the High Wire, host Del Bigtree says:

We are putting immense pressure on [the coronavirus] with an underperforming vaccine that is going to turn it into a hulk. And [Dr. Bossche’s] concern is that it will become so viral and so deadly that there is nothing we can do to stop it.

I can’t help but feel Bigtree and Bossche may be big fans of I Am Legend. Both the novel and the movie are set in a post-apocalyptic America, where a mutant measles virus has wiped out most of mankind. Outside of such dystopian thrillers, however, it’s hard to find examples of such genocidal pandemics (natural or manmade).

Del Bigtree was, as many know, commenting on Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s open letter and interview where the vaccine scientist denounces the COVID-19 vaccine.

Well, he sort of denounces it.

Actually, not really. 

Instead, he praises the COVID-19 vaccine — merely claiming that it is the “wrong weapon” at the “wrong time.” Ignoring any of its innate dangers and risks, he says that its belated use in the midst of this (invisible) pandemic will trigger more lethal variants.

Super deadly variants: Where have we heard that line before?

His solution to stop these mutant ninja viruses (resulting from an experimental mRNA vaccine)? More vaccines! Yes, he advises mass vaccinating with an even more experimental vaccine.

The idea is this new type of vaccine will stimulate our innate immune system to produce more natural killer (NK) white blood cells.

The natural killer vaccine. Boy, that should sell well.

How many red flags can we plant around this doctor (whose resumé includes helping out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI and GSK)?

First off, let me be clear, I think the vaccine is innately dangerous. In animal studies, after being re-exposed to the virus, vaccine trials left a pet cemetery of dead ferrets (according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy).

But the idea that an “under-performing” vaccine is going to make the virus even more deadly makes no sense to me. If anything, would not an under-performing vaccine make the virus even weaker?

Also, the proposition that inoculating people (while the virus is already in circulation) would finally lead to this monstrous killer coronavirus (that the WHO has been praying for) makes even less sense. As science writer Rosemary Frei’s explains in her excellent article, The Curious Case of Geert Vanden Bossche:

[Viral resistance] it’s not the major threat Vanden Bossche attempts to scare us about by saying the virus is likely to mutate so much and so quickly because of the current mass vaccination campaigns that soon it could escape all current attempts to stop its spread. Remember, for example, that yearly flu mass vaccination hasn’t caused influenza to spiral out of control and decimate the global population.

In truth, science still has not even proven that viruses are contagious, no less that they can become super-contagious. As Thomas Cowan writes in his book, The Contagion Myth:

It was Louis Pasteur who convinced a skeptical medical community that contagious germs caused disease. However, he eventually admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous deathbed confession that “the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything.”

Viruses may be at the scene of the “crime.” But so are police and paramedics. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are to blame. Indeed, a virus may be part of some type of healing or detoxification process. Maybe they even help devour cancer cells? ScienceDaily says that in addition to rejecting virally infected cells, NK cells also reject tumours. Could there be a connection?

As epidemiologist Dr. Ron Brown said in a recent interview:

What is a virus, where does it come from, what is its purpose, and what happens to it in the body? How pathogenic is it, and how infectious is it? Virology does not have the full answers to these basic questions, and yet, public health policy is predicated on assumptions about the nature of viruses that may prove to be the complete opposite of reality.

Therefore, out of everything Dr. Bossche said about the virus (his “enemy”) and vaccines (his “weapon”), these words made the most sense to me:

We don’t understand our weapon… We don’t understand exactly what a virus is, do we? So we go to a war and we don’t know our enemy. We don’t understand the strategy of our enemy. And we don’t know how our weapon works. I mean, how is that going to go? That’s a fundamental problem to begin with.

Bossche’s interview and letter are full of so many contradictions, it’s hard to know where he is coming from. Is he struggling to see through decades of cognitive bias, slowly realizing that pharmaceutical vaccines are not the answer to disease? Is he trying to tell the truth without ending up in the trunk of some car at the bottom of a lake? Is he just confused?

Or is he trying cover up the fact that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to kill people in and of itself? He may have been hired, bribed or blackmailed to deflect blame from the vaccine and, instead, on super-variants that adapted to the belated inoculation.

Seems like a great backup plan for Big-Pharma: Oh, sorry, that vaccine didn’t work. Whoops! Oh, and look, more people are dying! Double whoops! But don’t worry, we have this new vaccine instead to solve the problem we created with the first vaccine.

This reminds me of when a country unjustly attacks another country. The politicians argue not over whether they should attack or not, but whether they should be using air force or ground troops; whether should attack now or in a month or last year.

I know it sounds crazy, but that’s basically what he seems to be saying. All the while he says almost nothing about the fact we could just strengthen (or stop abusing) our immune systems. To me, it looks like we have far more to fear from lockdowns, vaccines, masking and (anti-)social distancing. In short, it’s the weapons being used against “the enemy” that may be the real threat to our own safety.

I suspect that this idea of “the vaccine mutating the virus” is just a way to get the rest of us to believe in a pandemic of killer variants. Given how long humans have been on the earth, I think common sense tells us that nature is not very likely to concoct some killer virus to wipe us out. The “Wuhan laboratory theory” (whether true or not) provided the conspiratorial community a stronger reason to believe — at the beginning of the scamdemic, at least — that a genetically-modified SARS-CoV-2 may actually have been a threat to humanity.

Well, they’re doing it again, by suggesting that vaccine-induced mutations may actually produce a real pandemic. After all, even the mainstream crowd isn’t (on the whole) too worried about these theoretical variants. As Jordan Schachtel (the brilliant and witty writer behind the The Dossier blog) recently wrote, in his article “The Chicken Little act isn’t working – COVID Mania is wearing off”:

The “public health experts” are scrambling to remain in the spotlight, and even their most reliable scare tactics are failing to keep the masses compliant, paranoid, and afraid. For the “public health” cartel, 2020 was the best year of their lives, and it seems that after one year of “two weeks to slow the spread,” they just can’t muster up the momentum needed to replicate that power high….

For the last few months, the ruling class has settled on promoting “new variants” of the coronavirus in order to keep the power grab going…

But now, the new mutation panic is simply not imprinting in the collective mindset in the same way that the old tactics were deployed. The ruling class feels their control slipping away. For the first time in a full year, they’re losing the argument. The momentum for their causes are collapsing. “New variants” just don’t hit hard enough for people to care. 

If man-made mutant pathogens were truly so deadly, you’d think by now that, after all the sanitization of 2020, the entire human race would have died out from Incredible Hulk MRSA mutations. Instead, such microbial doomsday predictions have yet to even cause a significant rise in all-cause mortality.

In conclusion, this paragraph from Rosemary Frei’s article, sums up my feelings on the matter:

COVID has an extremely high survival rate. So why develop yet another expensive, invasive and experimental solution to a problem that barely exists, if it does at all?

Natural or otherwise, I suggest we forget about the variant fear-mongering, and focus on the real monsters in our midst: Mass vaccination. Lockdowns. Social distancing. Forced masking. And a generation of children being raised in shame of their own respiratory system.

Back in August 2020, Dr. Ronald B. Brown, PhD disrupted the academic world’s doomsday predictions about the COVID-19 pandemic when the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness published his first paper on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As he told me in an interview:

The manuscript cites the smoking-gun, documented evidence showing that the public’s overreaction to the coronavirus pandemic was based on the worst miscalculation in the history of humanity, in my opinion.

On February 26, 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Medicina published another paper by Brown as part of a special issue, “Pandemic Outbreak of Coronavirus.” Brown’s paper, titled “Outcome reporting bias in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials” is also listed in the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health.

In Brown’s first coronavirus paper, he showed how mistaking infection fatality rates for case fatality rates exaggerated the predicted lethality of the SAR-CoV-2 virus. In this second paper, he shows how relative risk reduction measures are being used to exaggerate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. 

I’ve read the latest paper two-and-half times (but only claim to understand 90% of it). The overall conclusion, however, seems clear to me: The COVID-19 vaccine trials, in fact, only showed a negligible reduction in risk of acquiring a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection; not the near perfect immunization the media is portraying. 

As Dr. Brown writes in the paper’s conclusion:

Such examples of outcome reporting bias mislead and distort the public’s interpretation of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine efficacy and violate the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent.

The following is an informal interview I conducted with Dr. Brown, from his office in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. It offers a layman’s interpretation of his findings and conclusions.

MANLEY: I’ve run into many people who refuse to even look at the vaccine trial data. They say they leave interpretation of the data to the “experts.” So, I’m glad we now have an expert like yourself to offer another interpretation of the data.

BROWN: But regardless of my expertise, I don’t have the power or license to tell people what to do. I don’t advise people. As a researcher, my goal is to present evidence so that people can choose to make more informed decisions about their health. I can explain the scientific evidence in layman’s terms, but I don’t think anyone, layman or expert, should take anything I “explain” on face value alone. Other experts could look at the same evidence and rightfully interpret it in an entirely different way, leading to an academic debate. 

MANLEY: A debate? Aren’t those illegal? I guess not yet. But then, many people like to argue that there is no “right answer” because it is open for debate, and that we must rely on a consensus.

BROWN: As the evidence is presented from both sides during a debate, eventually the “truth” will emerge. By truth, I don’t mean merely a consensus. You can have 100% consensus that turns out to be 100% wrong, as in groupthink. Rather, I mean that the evidence is so clear that there is little point in arguing anymore… there is no longer any “reasonable doubt.” 

MANLEY: Considering how little open debate there has been regarding not only the vaccine, but also COVID-19 itself, how close would you say we are to the truth?

BROWN: Today, we are nowhere near possessing knowledge that is beyond reasonable doubt concerning infectious viral diseases like COVID-19. Yet, as draconian public health mitigation measures are imposed on society with little proof of effectiveness, and much proof of collateral damage, there is little debate covered in the commercial media about public health issues. In my opinion, public health officials and politicians are under pressure to do something to protect the public, even if they have no idea what actually works. They see an open debate in the media as something that weakens their power and control.

There are other issues. The world copied China’s mitigation measures because China’s reported case rates are so low. But China’s rates are low because they use different case definitions than we do. If you want to instantly reduce cases of a disease, change the case definition. I have written about this in more detail in a new manuscript undergoing peer review. Also, we have a multitude of genomic sequencing technicians who are newly sequencing every common cold virus and variant they can find. Their findings are often translated immediately by public health officials, without sufficient vetting by epidemiologists who can put the information into proper context and prevent hysterical overreactions by public health officials and politicians.

Virology Cannot Answer Basic Questions

MANLEY: In many ways, we still don’t even understand how a virus functions, do we?

BROWN: What is a virus, where does it come from, what is its purpose, and what happens to it in the body? How pathogenic is it, and how infectious is it? Virology does not have the full answers to these basic questions, and yet, public health policy is predicated on assumptions about the nature of viruses that may prove to be the complete opposite of reality. I have spent the year reviewing the past and most recent virology literature, and I have come upon some astonishing evidence that could turn the whole infectious disease paradigm on its ear. That evidence will be presented in the near future in yet another manuscript currently under peer review. 

MANLEY: Isn’t such exploration the basis of science? Wouldn’t such debate not only bring us closer to the truth, but also provide some sort of intellectual entertainment for the public? 

BROWN: Yes, but a public health debate investigating these questions is being undermined by the official narrative dominating the commercial media. All other views are immediately dismissed in the commercial media as misinformation. 

Modern Medicine Prone to Censorship

MANLEY: Would you agree that this type of censorship has been going on for probably as long as modern medicine has been around?

BROWN: Agreed, this is not unique to COVID-19. For example, I have tried to use the public media to report my novel evidence-based research findings about the cause of cancer, but with little success because my findings challenged the mainstream status quo (see Phosphate toxicity and tumorigenesis, 2018).

MANLEY: So how do we get the public more involved and interested in supporting open scientific debates?

BROWN: From open debates comes new knowledge, and new knowledge increases one’s power. The public must defend its right to access new knowledge, and the public should remain open-minded enough to consider all views. At the same time, one must remain skeptical and reject any explanation that is not backed up with sufficient evidence. 

MANLEY: That’s where a lot of people have been trained to leave examining evidence to so-called “experts.”

BROWN: People can’t depend solely on the “approved” experts to tell them if the evidence is sufficient or not. We have so-called public health experts already telling us that now and look at the results. Experts from all sides must be given a fair hearing to present their case to the public and defend their case against the cases presented by other experts. It may be that pieces of evidence must be synthesized together from many sources to arrive at the final truth. That is the method I use to conduct my research. I look for pieces of evidence from a variety of research literature to synthesize together into a logical explanation or evidence-based theory (see Breakthrough knowledge synthesis in the Age of Google, 2020). If someone else presents additional evidence that refutes or proves my theory wrong, then everyone benefits and scientific knowledge advances. 

MANLEY: Is that not where the public gets confused by their proud belief in “sound science” — relying on scientific theories rather than scientific evidence?

BROWN: Theories are just the starting point in the flow of scientific information, and the quality of a theory is related to the evidence upon which it rests. A good theory starts with a clean slate and inductively emerges out of the synthesis of reliable evidence. By contrast, evidence in a weak theory is cherry picked to support a predetermined conclusion or agenda, while ignoring contradicting or refuting evidence. But a weak theory doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. 

In my vaccine manuscript, I included background information about Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). Canada has been a major contributor to EBM through the work of David L. Sackett at McMaster University, who later worked at Oxford University. I added text to the manuscript citing Sackett’s research on clinical epidemiology. Sackett and Richard J. Cook, from the University of Waterloo, published clinical epidemiology tools to critically appraise the veracity and usefulness of clinical evidence in medical treatments and diagnosis. My manuscript attempts to carry on this great Canadian academic research tradition by applying these same clinical epidemiologic tools to a critical appraisal of mRNA vaccine clinical trials.

Why the COVID-19 Vaccine is Useless and Ineffective

MANLEY: Can you give us a layman’s explanation of your COVID-19 vaccine manuscript?

BROWN: The public and many health professionals are unaware of outcome reporting bias in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. Clinical trial outcomes reported by the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine manufacturers for their messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were reviewed and authorized for emergency use by an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 

MANLEY: Do you know if the vaccines were actually approved or were they merely “authorized?” This is what the FDA did with the PCR tests, stating they were authorized for emergency use because they did not have an approved alternative. I was wondering if the same word game is being played here.

BROWN: It sounds like the same authorization for emergency use. The vaccines have not been officially approved, and the experimental trials are continuing. However, trial participants in the placebo group may choose to drop out to receive the vaccine, based on the too-good-to-be-true reported outcome of approximately 95% risk reductions in symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections.

MANLEY: Without an ongoing placebo group, would that mean, essentially, there is no long-term safety evaluation happening beyond the trial period?

BROWN: With more people dropping out, the statistical power of the study would weaken, although there are many thousands of people in the studies. More importantly, an ethical dilemma has surfaced to either encourage participants in the placebo group to drop out of a study and receive the vaccine benefits, or have those participants continue on with the placebo without the vaccine benefits. However, this dilemma assumes that the reported too-good-to-be-true efficacy of the mRNA vaccines is valid. My article uses clinical epidemiology tools to critically appraise the efficacy of the mRNA vaccine clinical trial outcomes. These tools are available online and may be used by anyone to verify the efficacy reported by the vaccine manufacturers, assuming that people can get their hands on reliable published data. 

Also, since the article was published, follow up reports of observational studies have claimed that the vaccines are proving highly effective within the population. But the level of evidence in uncontrolled observational studies is inferior to that of clinical controlled trials, which is considered the gold standard of evidence. Observational studies may not compare results to control groups, and the studies don’t always adequately account for confounding factors, such as the deceleration of cases in the bell curve of seasonal influenza. Of course, people may protest that COVID-19 is much more lethal than seasonal influenza, but I exposed those biases in my first article. Furthermore, there are other biases in the reported high number of COVID-19 fatalities, which I critically appraise in my new manuscripts currently under peer review. 

Relative Versus Absolute Risk Reduction

MANLEY: So exactly how much risk reduction are the manufacturers crediting their vaccine with?

BROWN: The reduced risk of COVID-19 infection reported by the manufacturers is approximately 95%, which is an accurate relative risk reduction measure. However, missing from the vaccine reports are absolute risk reduction measures which are much more clinically relevant to the reduced risk of COVID-19 infection. The absolute risk reduction of the vaccines in the present critical appraisal is approximately 1%, indicating practically no clinical efficacy or usefulness of the vaccines to reduce COVID-19 infection. 

MANLEY: Essentially, then you are saying for all practical purposes, the vaccine is useless and ineffective?

BROWN: For applied clinical and public health interventions, yes, they appear to be almost completely ineffective. The members of the FDA advisory committee overlooked FDA guidelines to include absolute reduction measures when reporting clinical trial outcomes to the public, leading to outcome reporting bias in the FDA’s authorization of the mRNA vaccines.

MANLEY: Can you explain what is the difference between Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)?

BROWN: Figure 2 in my article (shown below) sums up all the information you need to know as a layperson. The other calculations in the manuscript are intended for other researchers. You can calculate both relative risk reduction (RRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) from the same clinical trial data. 

The Pfizer vaccine is represented by the column on the left of Figure 2, and the Moderna vaccine is on the right. The blue part of each column shows each vaccine’s relative risk reduction. This is the vaccine efficacy reported in the press. 

MANLEY: So the Pfizer vaccine reduces the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 95.1% and the Moderna vaccine reduces the risk by 94.1%, correct?

BROWN: Correct. So far, so good. However, what is not reported in the press, or in the clinical trial documents, is the orange portion of the columns showing the absolute risk reduction. This is only 0.7% (that’s seven-tenths of one percent) for the Pfizer vaccine, and 1.1% for the Moderna vaccine. These numbers are the most important numbers to consider when determining how much the vaccine will actually reduce your risk of infection. RRRs are intended for use in comparing an overall summary of one trial with other trials to determine which is more efficacious; RRRs are not intended for direct clinical and public health applications.

MANLEY: So, it appears as if they went with the relative risk reduction, because it looked more favourable?

BROWN: Yes, reporting relative risk outcomes, without absolute risk outcomes, has been a huge problem in research for decades. Notice that the ARR numbers are close to zero. The vaccines have almost no effect at all! In fact, the numbers are so low compared to the RRRs that I had to use a special percentage scale on the left of the figure that increases by ten times for each interval, otherwise the figure would be many times larger to span the enormous gap between the ARR levels and RRR levels.

MANLEY: Shouldn’t this be illegal? Or, at least, fall under the category of misleading advertising?

BROWN: The FDA guidelines say to report both RRRs and ARRs to the public, but the FDA advisory committees ignored the guidelines when they authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use, and they left out the ARRs. The New England Journal of Medicine also did not include ARRs when it published the clinical trial data for the vaccines. I agree with you that the people responsible for this misleading information should be held accountable. Check out the article’s reference to the roster members of the FDA advisory committee. 

MANLEY: How do the COVID-19 risk ratios compare to influenza vaccines?

BROWN: That’s another bombshell in the article that people should be aware of. One of the peer reviewers suggested that I discuss other examples of outcome reporting bias involving relative risk measures in randomized clinical trials. My article shows that clinical trials of influenza vaccines have a 1.4% ARR compared to the usual 40% to 60% RRRs reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

MANLEY: So, people are being led to believe that the COVID-19 vaccine(s) will all but eliminate their risks, when, the data suggests, it actually only makes a barely detectable difference?

BROWN: Correct. Some people may point out that 1% of a million vaccinated people are still 10,000 prevented symptomatic infections. Fair enough; then report a 1% reduction and see how many people are still interested in getting the vaccine. Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence that even a reported 1% reduction is valid. For example, normal saline solutions used in the placebo groups are associated with fevers and other symptoms common to coronavirus infections. The credibility of the entire enterprise is compromised.

Violating the Right to Informed Consent

Brown: This type of outcome reporting bias violates the public’s legal and ethical right to informed consent about the true efficacy of the vaccines. Regardless if you are provax or antivax or are undecided, you have a right to all the facts to inform your personal opinion and choice. Bottomline: you have before you smoking-gun evidence of a huge public health scandal — if the word ever gets out! This problem has been ongoing for decades and really took off when the pharmaceutical companies were granted permission to advertise directly to consumers in the 1980s. Think of all the systematic reviews of clinical trials that could be compromised by this type of clinical trial outcome reporting bias.

MANLEY: You were born in New York, but have lived in Ontario, Canada for the last 46 years. How open do you feel Canadians are to dissecting the claims being propagated around this COVID-19 vaccine?

BROWN: A Canadian friend told me that the truth is bad news. I thought to myself, “Think what you’re saying. You’re saying it is better to go along with what you are told, even though it is a lie.” Where I was raised (New York City), people are encouraged to speak out when they see something wrong. Apparently, Canadians aren’t encouraged to do that. Rocking the boat doesn’t fit in with the Canadian motto: Peace, Order, and Good Government (not great government, mind you, just good enough. Mustn’t set our expectations too high).

MANLEY: Yes, a Canadian businessman recently told me, “If you’re going to tell the truth, have one foot on your stirrup.” It is interesting that you, who are one of the few doctors in Canada to be speaking out, were actually born in the States. Anthony Fauci was also born in New York, was he not?

BROWN: Yes. And David L. Sackett, a founder of EBM, was also an American who immigrated to Canada. I came to Canada, in 1975, to teach music and perform as a professional musician. Fauci is from Brooklyn, and I was born in the Bronx, so he and I are part of a traditional NY rivalry going back to the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Bronx Bombers (Yankees) when I was growing up in the 50s.

Fauci and I obviously don’t see eye to eye. In a recent interview about the AZT clinical trials for AIDS, Fauci described what to do if the efficacy of a treatment “has not yet reached statistical significance.” Fauci’s quick-fix solution is that “the data needs to be further analyzed.” I don’t know of any other data analysis method that increases statistical significance as quickly as relative risk reduction measures. The public should be cautious of modern day snake-oil salesmen. Characters like that make a buck by filling people with fear and then selling a worthless quick-fix remedy to them. In my opinion, that’s exactly what’s happening in this pandemic. 

MANLEY: Well, I’m glad you are on our side and have been able to have your work published in peer-reviewed journals. 

BROWN: We live in a time of censorship and suppressed debate. Fear based on ignorance is the rule. The only way out is to publish the truth and science, have the public weigh the evidence, and let people make up their own minds. It’s a painfully slow process, and that’s frustrating, but I believe the truth will eventually win out. In the meantime, the only advice I can offer is for people to have patience. Have faith that when this is all over there will be a call for change and accountability.

^{Image by Dr. Brown, reminiscent of the snake-oil salesman from the American Wild West.}

About Ronald B. Brown, PhD: He has authored over a dozen peer-reviewed articles in the U.S. National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health; as well as a chapter on breakthrough knowledge synthesis in Contemporary Natural Philosophy and Philosophies. In addition to his epidemiologic research on infectious disease and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, his current areas of research include prevention of cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other chronic diseases. You can read his paper, “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials,” at the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.

The following is the second in a series of interviews with a nurse who works in a hospital on the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario. She has provided sufficient evidence, and links to public records, to satisfy me that she is indeed a nurse working for over a decade in multiple Canadian hospitals, serving both in the emergency room and intensive care unit. To protect her identity, position and family, details about her and her place of work have been changed or omitted, without altering her message.

Life-Threatening Reactions After COVID-19 Vaccination

JOHN: Are you being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine?

NURSE ANDREA: I’ve not been forced to take it (yet).  The pressure is more social, rather than a legal or occupational requirement, at this time.  Most people seem to get vaxed because they want to socially signal that they “believe in science.”  

The politically-induced vaccine supply restriction in Canada, that is making most people upset, is actually to my advantage.  Everyone keeps asking, “Andrea, did you get the vaccine?”  My standard reply is something like, “No, I already had my tubes tied; I don’t need any more medically induced infertility,” or I say, “No, I’m just exploiting everyone else’s enthusiasm for self-imposed medical experimentation.”

JOHN: How have the other staff members responded to their first injection of the COVID-19 vaccine?

NURSE ANDREA: I was just talking to a colleague who has no history of passing out easily, but she completely lost consciousness after getting the vaccine.  In medical terms, this is called a syncope.  Anecdotally, she was told at the vax clinic (off the record) that about one in ten people were experiencing syncope after injection. It seems to happen randomly.  

My colleague said she witnessed someone pass out as they were walking to the exit!  This is extremely dangerous because even if the syncope is benign, all it takes is a bump to the head on the way down resulting in severe injury or death.  Imagine: a healthy young person with almost zero chance of dying from COVID, driven by media and social pressure to “believe in science,” getting jabbed with fake immune stimulation and dying. Seems kinda evil to me.

Vaccinated Patients Filing into Otherwise Underused ERs

JOHN: Have you seen any adverse reactions among patients?

NURSE ANDREA:  A patient came to the emergency department with severe lightheadedness and an episode of chest pain.  They had a hard time standing. I was taking their history and they told me they had recently taken the corona vax.    

Of course, there are other possible causes for symptoms, such as mild heart attack or recent dietary change involving severe caloric restriction.  But how do we really know if the vax didn’t precipitate, or act as one (among the confluence of factors) that led to hospital admission?  

The history of medicine is replete with entrenched fantasies about cause and effect — especially when the government, pharmaceutical, and agricultural big players are involved.

Vaccine Reactions Not Being Recorded Properly

JOHN: Did the doctor record her condition as a possible vaccine reaction?

NURSE ANDREA: The doctor immediately dismissed the idea that the corona vax could have played any role in the patient’s symptoms. It got me thinking, how much data about possible reactions to the vax are simply not being collected because of the bias of the clinician to ignore them?

JOHN: How many of these patients, following a COVID-19 rejection, are elderly?

NURSE ANDREA: We’re seeing a surge of patients come to the hospital from the nursing homes after getting vaxed.  These poor folks, in their 80s and 90s with chronic heart and lung disease, can’t handle the metabolic stimulation caused by the COVID vax.  

I have to be intellectually honest and say I can’t ascribe direct causation by the vax for their presentation.  It could be a urinary infection or bacterial pneumonia, for example.  

But what I find shocking is how, for instance, my recent patient had “COVID” back in January (and survived despite being extremely elderly with severe heart, lung, and kidney conditions).  According to the CDC, immunity for COVID is supposed to last 90 days after infection, yet my patient got vaccinated anyway, well within the window of immunity.  One of my colleagues said, “Are they literally trying to kill this patient!?”  And yet, the doctor in emergency says, “I think it’s COVID”.  Doesn’t Occam’s razor apply if the patient is within the window of immunity from COVID, just got vaxed yesterday, and is here today with a severe immune response requiring hospitalization?  

JOHN: What exactly are the symptoms you are seeing in these elderly people after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination?

NURSE ANDREA: Fever, extreme chills, tremors, headache, weakness, lightheadedness, and shortness of breath are symptoms that stand out to me. Nothing too specific which makes it hard to differentiate right away whether it’s from the vax, some other underlying problem, or combination of both, especially when patients are just walking in off the street or offloading from an ambulance stretcher.

Hospitals Long Track Record of Administering Dangerous and Ineffective Pharmaceuticals

JOHN: Are the doctors truly overlooking the correlation or are they simply not saying anything?

NURSE ANDREA: I think we clinicians in general are heavily biased toward belief in the efficacy of our interventions. For example, in hospitals, there are many routine prescriptions, such as laxatives, sedatives, and antacids that have zero evidence of benefit.  Sleeping pills, sedatives, and antipsychotic medication are actually quite dangerous.  

Despite the evidence of danger with these drugs, many doctors routinely prescribe them and many nurses unquestioningly administer them because they appear to work, at least in the short run. 

Consider the following highly realistic scenario: a delirious elderly patient constantly wanders the hallway without a mask while touching public surfaces, which generates extra concern from staff, especially during a “pandemic” when everyone is supposed to remain distanced and surfaces remain sanitized.  In response, we give the patient a drug to “settle them down.”  So they sleep for a night, and the next day the nurse gives a report and says, “The patient slept well and didn’t wander after I gave the pill to help them sleep.”  This gets reported to the doctor who is pleased that the patient stayed in bed and didn’t wander around disrupting other patients, causing an infection control concern, or creating an inconvenience for the staff.  

Consequently, the patient continues to get drugged every night.  Then, after a few days, the delirium is worse and the patient starts their usual wandering. However, now they are loaded up with sedatives and can’t keep their balance. The cascade of nightly drugging results in a fall, leading to severe maiming and/or death.

JOHN: It sounds the like this aspect of “new normal” — using unproven methods to seemingly deal with a problem — isn’t all that new.

NURSE ANDREA: The lesson here is that much of what we are doing right now in response to COVID (such as constant mask enforcement, vaccinating the elderly with limited physiologic reserves to handle the side-effects, and keeping them isolated and locked up in rooms “for their own safety”) is all part of the same myopic mindset that has always plagued medicine and the healthcare system broadly.

JOHN: It’s strange how medicine will look back and laugh at practices like blood letting, yet continue with equally unscientific and harmful practices.

NURSE ANDREA: I believe that when we look back on all this intervention for COVID — both pharmaceutical and not — we will be ashamed of what we have done.  Just as countless patients in the past have been defacto murdered with tranquilizers, we are murdering people today with interventions aimed at controlling or curing COVID.

JOHN: Thank you for speaking out.

My first interview Nurse Andrea is available here.

Fine artist Jordan Henderson has just released his third painting exposing the COVID-19(84) deception. Today, in case you’ve forgotten, is COVID-19’s first birthday. The WHO made the term official on February 11, 2020 — making COVID-19 the horrific new acronym for the cold and flu season. How appropriate, therefore, to release this horrific new painting for its one year anniversary. The following is a interview I conducted with Jordan regarding Safe & Sanitized.

JOHN: Why do you associate a face mask (which is promoted as a life saving miracle) with a skull (a long dead head)?

JORDAN: The association of the face mask with the skull illustrates what COVID-19 restrictions really are: a cause of death, suffering and loss of freedoms. The people most likely to die of “COVID-19” are those who believe the official narrative. For example; they lock themselves away, live in fear, get a test, test positive, agree to a ventilator and are then killed by the ventilator.

JOHN: The mask appears not to merely be a face covering, but a gag. Can you speak more about this?

JORDAN: The mask acts as a gag, because forced covering of the human face is a direct assault upon freedom of expression. It is nothing less than suppression of dissent, “Oh, you see through the lie, well you must act as though you believe in it. Under threat of fines and imprisonment, we order you to act like you believe the official lies, and we order you to force anyone entering your business to do the same.”

JOHN: Now, masks are common enough these days; what about the handcuffs?

JORDAN: The handcuffs represent the lockdowns and restrictions on movement and travel. Blood is suggested through streaks of red paint underneath the handcuffs as a reminder of the very real deaths brought about by COVID-19 mandates. The blood is kept in the shadows, almost ignored; the same way the destruction caused by government mandates is ignored by the establishment media and figureheads.

JOHN: There’s nothing more sanitary than a bleached skull. Can you speak about the brilliant title you chose?

JORDAN: The title Safe & Sanitized is intended as dark humour, for the purpose of illustrating the hypocrisy of the Medical Police State. Death, destruction, censorship, imprisonment, persecution, and the ensuing loss of health and freedom for the general population are carried out under the guise of “safety” and “sanitation”. 

JOHN: You said you felt driven to paint this horrific image. What message are you trying to convey?

JORDAN: My drive in creating this image was the desire to visually encapsulate the end goal of all COVID-19 policies — the subjugation of the general populace. The subjugation of a human or group of humans by another human or group of humans is the common denominator to those things universally regarded as evil; murder, torture, rape, genocide, and slavery, all involve one human or group of humans being forced under the authority of another human or group of humans.

JOHN: Despite the horror of it, there is a definite and striking beauty to the painting.

JORDAN: While the subject matter is dark, the painting itself is meant to be aesthetically pleasing; hands, skulls, and blood, all have a beauty of their own. The beauty of these three elements (hands, the skull, and blood) hopefully remind the viewer of how marvelous human beings are, thereby increasing the viewer’s empathy for any human being forced under the authority of another.

JOHN: Thank you very much for taking the time to both paint it and answer my questions. Where can readers go to purchase the original or prints?

JORDAN: The original is for sale at JordanHendersonFineArt.com. And prints, as well as stationary cards, T-shirts and other memorabilia, are available at jordan-henderson.pixels.com.

I’ll introduce you to these three in a moment (no, they are not the names of characters in my novel)….

First, let me go back to August 2020: Artist Jordan Henderson sent me an email offering to paint the cover of my forthcoming novel, Much Ado About Corona. I instantly said, “You bet!” I was already immensely moved by his Sanity, Her Son painting, which depicts human dignity prevailing over new normal degradation :

So we got busy brainstorming ideas for the cover. This proved to be about as easy as planning to repaint the Vatican. While we came up with long lists and many sketches for a cover, Jordan gave me permission to use a section of the Sanity, Her Son painting as a placeholder, as you can see here:

I call that the “Mr. Strange” cover. It focused solely on masked members of the full painting. I feel it makes the novel appear merely a dystopian story (rather than a dystopian love story). But I didn’t want to include Sanity and her son, because they weren’t characters in the story.

Or, at least, so I thought. My muse ended up working them into one chapter, then another, and another. I changed Sanity’s name to Sandy. Her son’s called Joshua. Now that the two of them were co-stars in the story, we considered using this arrangement for the cover:

I’m very happy with this version (even though it features characters who don’t play a central role). I call it the “Ms. Sane” cover. Knowing we had already a great cover to fall back on, we decided to be more daring with our ideas. Here are just some of our rejected sketches (the amatuer pencil drawings are mine, the rest Jordan rendered in charcoal):

None of those felt right. So we started considering a still life. We eventually came up with a highly allegorical cover. Both Jordan and I loved the sketch, and the symbolism. Our “focus group,” however, all thought we were crazy. Some even thought the new composition downright scary:

Trust me, it makes perfect sense, once you read the book…

Next, Jordan came up with an idea that would certainly get attention. I wasn’t too sure it would suit the novel; but he wanted to give it a shot, letting me know I didn’t have to use it. So he ordered some props, set up an easel and started squirting paint onto his palette. Here’s a mock-up using the finished painting — I call it the “Dr. Sanitized” cover:

Nothing more sanitary than bleaching to the bone. We can safely say a skull does not have COVID. Safe at last!

First off, it’s brilliantly rendered. The style works so well for a novel cover. The elements weld together frighteningly well. The mask does not cover Dr. Sanitized’s lower face, it literally gags him. Just look at the way it loops bone, instead of an ear. Chilling. The cuffed wrists and hands are on the thin side, suggesting an emaciated, half-starved prisoner. Even the red used in the mask, reflected below, has a blood-letting feel to it. While the contrast between the foreground and the blue brush strokes in the background, softens the overall image just enough.

But, I’m afraid, it’s just too horrific for this novel. That was my instant reaction, and it’s not going away. The cover almost screams “horror novel” which, of course, is not what Much Ado About Corona is. At worst it’s a soft dystopian — a real mixed genre, crossing a “love story” with an “institutional escape” story with a sci-fi edge and the hero’s journey. And, oddly, a fair bit of humour and a little bit of ice skating (yes, it’s set in Canada). Plus, some German opera (Schubert, anyone?) and some arrogant Canadian folk music (did I mention it’s set in Canada?).

Some might even say the story falls into the thriller category, but that’s not my aim, and I’d argue it only borders on a Dan Brown style novel. But it’s certainly not Stephen King or Thomas Harris.

I showed the scary cover to my son, Jonah, and here was his reaction…

…okay, yes, I know, Jonah’s blind (though, I often forget). He’s also a professional stage actor (or, at least, was, before COVID-19). So he may be outright acting (per the direction of his father). Actually, truth be told, he thought a masked skull sounded pretty cool (like most thirteen-year-old boys would).

Instead, I sent all three covers — Dr. Strange, Ms. Sane and Dr. Sanitized — to fifteen (sighted) people — giving them an A, B, and C choice:

Fourteen out of fifteen voted C. Only Pete, a homeschooling dad, voted for the skull cover:

Although it is dark, I personally like A a lot and think it will generate interest on Amazon. I dig the Hamlet reference, the red-masked skull, the cuffed hands — which jives very well with the Shakespeare reference of the title. I also think it successfully represents the spiritual-existential nature of the crisis we find ourselves in. It is a unique and apropo take on an archetypal image….

Pete might be right; but such horror lovers will be sorely disappointed with the witty first chapter. The Hamlet fans might, however, be satisfied. Fortunately, Jordan took it quite well, sending an email saying:

No worries whatsoever. Part of the reason I was so intent on the piece I just created is because I loved the idea and decided I would create it no matter what, as you say it is a stand alone piece so if not used as the cover, it’s not like I am out anything at all.

So we decided to go back to the (literal) drawing board and brainstorm new ideas. We almost gave up, but finally came up with a concept that we both feel is what we’ve been struggling for (art is a slave driver, let me tell you) . Jordan, in his Washington State studio, has begun painting the new cover. It feels and looks much like the style of Sanity, Her Son, but more specific to the characters and plot of the novel. I’ll share more about this artistic journey in a future novel update (when the painting is ready).

As for the skull painting, which Jordan has named Safe and Sanitized, he’ll be releasing it tomorrow. Tomorrow, in case you’ve forgotten, is COVID-19’s first birthday. The WHO made the term official on February 11, 2020 — making COVID-19 the horrific new acronym for the cold and flu season. How appropriate, therefore, to release a horrific new painting for its one year anniversary.

Tomorrow, to herald its release, I’ll be publishing an interview with Jordan Henderson, explaining the symbolism in this, his latest (and most shocking) coronavirus painting — subscribe to be notified.