The Trudeau Dynasty: A Political Reset in the Making


Political dynasties are inherently problematic and ambiguous. When politics becomes a family business, enabling bloodline clans and generational households to occupy the seat of power, we have what will often amount to the very antithesis of responsible political function. Indeed, countries like Indonesia have passed laws prohibiting relatives from immediately succeeding each other in public office.

As Siddhartha George argues in a paper on the descendant effects of political dynasties, employing “regression discontinuity design” (RDD), if political capital is heritable, that is, deriving from a prominent name or a powerful network, “dynastic politics may render elections less effective at selecting good leaders and disciplining them in office.” One of the factors involved in the likelihood of negative effects is, in his term, “moral hazard.” 

Descendants face moral hazard, he explains, “because they inherit voters loyal to their family predecessor (typically a father), dampening incentives to exert effort and perform well in office”—the common problem of the epigone. 

This is especially true in the economic realm. Dynastic politics tend to issue in a “reversal of fortune,” that is, “a standard deviation decrease in wealth percentile rank.” Inherited political capital, George concludes, “allows descendants to persist in power even when they underperform,” as well as weakens “the ability of elections to select talented leaders.”

Dynastic families are a predictable feature of despotic regimes, such as the Kims in North Korea. They can be prominent in secular patristic regimes, such as the Peróns in Argentina or the Abes in Japan. Dynastic families readily assume office in democratic countries through name recognition and the accumulation of powerful resources, consisting of politically acquired wealth, long-haul expertise and extensive influence. One thinks of the Pitt family in Britain, the Adams and Roosevelt families in the U.S., and the Papandreous in Greece, each having produced two national leaders. One notes three generations of Nehru/Ghandi relations in India and the Bush family in the U.S. that enjoyed three terms in the White House, with indifferent results. The Clintons, for their part, almost achieved a regime by marriage. 

The cataclysmic tenure of the Rajapaksa family in Sri Lanka, whose Thunberg/ Schwab apostleship caused the total ruin of their country, serves as an object lesson for the times. “What brought the crisis to a boil,” writes John Hulsman, “was the desire of the long-ruling Rajapaksa dynasty to curry favor with the international technocracy, making ‘Davos Man’ happy by overnight transforming the island into a net-zero nation, doing away at a stroke with all the chemical fertilizers and pesticides absolutely necessary to make the country function economically.”

While not yet a Sri Lanka-like basket case, Canada has clearly suffered under the sway of a political dynasty emanating from the province of Quebec with its legal system rooted in the Napoleonic Codeand its predilection for authoritarian rule, whether clerical or political. There has always been something ultramontane about my home province. The British tradition of common law institutions, linguistic plurality and individual rights and freedoms never took solid hold in la belle province. As University of Oxford professor and author of Pluralist Thought and the State in Britain and FranceCécile Laborde  pithily explains, “French thought has been permeated by the idea of the autonomy of the state vis-à-vis society at large, while British thought has remained committed to an ideal of fluidity between state and society.”

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a charismatic and authoritarian personality who served as prime minister of Canada for 15 years (and 164 days), is a case in point. His avowedly leftist politics and close friendships with dictators like Fidel Castro were a severe blow to the country’s democratic identity and Loyalist patrimony. Canada’s current civil and political difficulties and dwindling economic prospects owe much to his National Energy Program (NEP) of 1980, the first move in the gradual destruction of Canada’s oil and gas producing regions, located primarily in the province of Alberta, at the expense of both the province’s and the country’s prosperity. Moreover, according to Gwyn Morgan in the Financial Post, “During the 15 years that Pierre Trudeau was prime minister, federal spending rose from 30 to 53 percent of GDP.” 

As Bob Plamondon reveals in his compendious The Truth about Trudeau, “The discrepancy between the strong economic position Trudeau inherited from his predecessor and the calamity he left to his successor could not be more stark…Trudeau left deep divisions and scars…a legacy of economic destruction, regional alienation, military emasculation, and international isolation.” Such is the elder Trudeau’s legacy to Canada. Plamondon concludes: “Trudeau may have brought Canada moments of glamour, but in the end his pirouettes were not worth the price.” 

Though devoid of his father’s intellectual sophistication, Justin Trudeau is following in the footsteps of le père in devastating Canada’s tradition of freedom and prosperity. There is really nothing new under the son. On the economic front, overall federal spending accounts for 64 percent of GDP and, as of 2020, the gross national debt has risen to 129.2 percent of GDP and continues to rise. Politically, Justin is dismantling Canada’s democratic scaffolding girder by girder, aligning the country with the globalist vision (or Great Reset) of a new world order predicated on wealth distribution away from small business and the middle class to the corporate elite, an international green agenda, and a redesign of the free market to favor the corporate takeover of global governance. Davos Man will be happy. Increasingly centralized authority allows Trudeau, who may be regarded as a “moral hazard” par excellence, to get away with one despotic initiative after another, including 72 secret Orders-in-Council

Donald J. Savoie observes in Democracy in Canada: The Disintegration of Our Institutions, an unsparing analysis of Canada’s federal and parliamentary dysfunction: “Trudeau fils pointed to his father for putting in place measures to concentrate power.” Justin himself concedes, in his own words, that “the trend toward more control in the Prime Minister’s Office…can be traced as far back as my father, who kicked it off in the first place.” The dynasty persists in working its mischief. 

When it comes to politicians like the Trudeaus, the dynastic urge to consolidate power and reset a representative mode of government in the direction of outright tyranny is irresistible. They are the only two leaders who have invoked the 1914 War Measures Act in peacetime, when neither occasion demanded it, even in trying circumstances. (The Emergencies Act, passed into law in 1988, is the same beast by another name.) Regarding the first instance, the October Crisis in the fall of 1970, Plamondon writes, furnishing strong evidence to support his claim, that Trudeau senior “wildly overestimated or purposely exaggerated the threat to society” from a ragtag group of sovereignist insurgents. In the second case, the truckers protest in Ottawa in the winter of 2022, Trudeau junior perpetrated a needless and destructive farce provoked, as many believe, by personal spite or mere authoritarianism. It must be a family trait. 

The Trudeau dynasty with its autocratic pathology has spelled approaching collapse for a once fortunate country. Canada has been torn from its historical foundations, its heirs having become what Cultural Action Party of Canada director Brad Salzberg calls Trudeau’s “nemesis communities”: “old stock” Canadians, anglophones, westerners, conservatives, truckers, oil sands workers, farmers, Christians and pro-lifers. At the same time, Trudeau has promoted 3rd-world immigrants, the LGBTQIA+ sodality, transgenders, violent agitators, illegals, freeloaders and indigents to the top of the food chain—after all, “diversity is our strength.”

The social order has been inverted by an anti-democratic, non-consultative political family. Younger brother Alexandre (Sacha), also an acolyte of Fidel Castro and, like his father, animated by a profound appreciation of China, does not, apparently, evince an interest in “dynastic script fulfillment.” It appears that the dynasty will stop at two Trudeaus, though it may be too late for rejoicing.

The dynastic work has been done and Canada may never be the same again.

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. His most recent volume of poetry, The Herb Garden, appeared in 2018 with Guernica Editions. His manifesto, Reflections on Music, Poetry & Politics, was released by Shomron Press in 2016. He has produced two CDs of original songs: Blood Guitar and Other Tales and Partial to Cain, on which he was accompanied by his pianist wife Janice Fiamengo. His latest book is Notes from a Derelict Culture, Black House, London, 2019.


The Choice Is Liberty or Lockdown



Two years after the first edition, the second edition of Liberty or Lockdown is now in print, just as the US president announced the end of the pandemic. The emergency declaration that excused the mass violation of human rights is still in effect. 

The significance of the timing of the first edition of this book is obvious to anyone who has lived through our strange times: September 2020. That was six months following the lockdown of most of the world during which places where people might “congregate” were shut by governments. 

The reason was to avoid, mitigate, eliminate maybe, or otherwise diminish the disease impact of the virus that caused Covid. This was before the vaccine came out, before the Great Barrington Declaration, and before data on excess deaths the world over showed vast carnage from these policy decisions.

The state was unleashed on the population as never before, in the name of science. There are no words to describe my outrage then and now. 

The onset of lockdowns put me to work trying to understand the thinking, a process which took me back through the history of pandemics, the relationship between infectious disease and freedom, and the origin of lockdown ideology in 2005. 

The times during which this book was written were beyond strange. People went full medieval in every way in which that term can be understood. There was public flogging in the form of masking and the abolition of fun, feudalistic segregation and disease shaming, the practical end of most medical care unless it was for Covid, the scapegoating of non-compliers, the neglect and abuse of children, and a turn to other pre-modern forms. All of this became worse once the non-sterilizing vaccines appeared on the market that many if not most people were forced to accept at pains of losing their jobs. 

Writing now in September of 2022, I cannot even imagine going through the pain of putting this research together again. I’m very pleased it was done then because now this book survives as a marker that there was dissent, if nothing else. I’ve added no new essays though I’ve written hundreds since then. The second edition should really stand as is. 

This was also a period of time – still is today – when vast numbers of people feel betrayed by technology, media, politicians, and even their one-time intellectual heroes. It is a time of grave destruction with still-broken supply chains, roaring inflation, mass cultural demoralization, labor market confusions, shattered lives of young and old, and terrible uncertainty about the future. 

When I put this book to bed in 2020, I had hoped we were near the end of this disaster. How wrong I was! Let us hope, too, that it is a period of rebuilding, however quietly it is taking place. 

Starting Brownstone Institute is part of that for me. So many others have joined. Today we published articles from all over the world since so many around the world have shared in this suffering. What will it take to emerge from the other side? 

From my point of view, it is not complicated. We need a renewed appreciation of human liberty and rights. That’s it. That is the whole prescription. It does not sound hard but apparently it is. This task will likely consume the rest of our lives. 

Jeffrey Tucker 

September 2022

Mr. Poilievre , Leader Of His Majesty’s Federal  Opposition Party : How About Having The Policies Of The Leader Be The Same As That Of The Party Before You Urge Your Supporters To Be Involved In All Aspects Of Society—They Then Might Be Consistent And Know What They Are Talking About!

Wouldn’t it be nice for the leader’s policies to jive with the Party’s policies???

Like CBC, the national broadcaster , the party he leads says to keep and reform a little, and the leader says eliminate—destroy. Which is it?

Like the leader pontificates on free trade and capitalism yet the party he leads supports anti free trade policies like supply boards . Which is it?

Like the leader says fire the President of the Bank of Canada , no investigation if he becomes PM. Can’t find that anywhere in the Party’s platform. Which is it? 

This is the endless problem for the mainstream parties especially the Conservatives —-

Who knows where they  stand ——-it’s a moving , ever changing bag of policies in dispute  with itself!!

Does it stand for integrity ? Where’s their bill to amend the Conflict Of Interest Act to ban any MP who has been found to have broken a law ?  

Quick way to get rid of Justin, methinks!

See , this is  why the citizens are forever disappointed ——-and that is already setting in with Poilievre —he can’t deliver what he said—-it runs counter to even the Party’s policy. 

So what are the supporters suppose to say when they follow the leader and become involved —No CBC , Some CBC ? NO Free Trade , Some Free Trade? 

Great talk —-other action—no consistency. 

But there’s an alternative, the People’s Party of Canada . Look them  up!

What in the Hell Was Washington Thinking?

By David Stockman

Global Research, September 23, 2022

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT

What in the hell were those bloody-minded Washington/NATO neocons thinking? At any time in the last nine months they could have had a diplomatic settlement with Russia that would have:

  • Avoided/ended the war in Ukraine, thereby saving tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives and hundreds of billion of economic cost and destruction;
  • Allowed the Russian speaking population of the Donbas a substantial degree of self-governance and autonomy from the hostile government in Kiev;
  • Permitted the historic Russian territory of Crimea to remain under Russian control per the wishes of the overwhelming share of its Russian-speaking population;
  • Kept NATO out of Ukraine and its missiles away from Russia’s doorstep;
  • Removed NATO missile bases from the the old Warsaw Pact countries, where NATO had expanded in breach of Washington’s solemn promise made at the time of the German reunification to not extend NATO “one inch to the east” .

Would this have furthered the national security of the US and Europe, permitted Europe’s then flourishing peaceful commerce with Russia to continue and avoided the current global plague of soaring energy and food prices caused by the Sanctions War?

Yes, it would have. In spades!

So the question recurs. What alternative path did Washington/NATO envision and how could the likely consequences have improved upon either the above summarized settlement, which has been possible all along or, far worse still, the disastrous end game which is now unfolding?

The fact is, after Putin’s speech of yesterday the phrase “disastrous end game” is barely adequate to describe the scenario ahead. That’s because it signaled that the relative restraint of Russia’s “Special Military Operation” (SMO) is now over, and what lies ahead is full scale political and military warfare that can only end in calamity for Ukraine, NATO and indeed the world:

The heart of the matter is that Putin is now :

  • Mobilizing Russia’s entire GDP, which is at least 15X greater than what’s left of Ukraine’s;
  • Mustering 300,000 fresh reserves or double the number of Russian forces now deployed in the SMO;
  • Abandoning the policy of not attacking Ukraine’s civilian electric power grid and railroad system, which has been crucial to Ukraine’s survival to date and the West’s massive supply of weapons across the western border and through the interior rail network;
  • Preparing to annex the two breakaway Donbas republics in the east and the Kherson and  Zaporizhzhia regions in the south after hurriedly called referendums, which will transform the war into an explicit NATO-enabled attack on Russia proper.

To be sure, Kiev and Washington are screaming loudly that these referendums are “shams”, and it’s probably the case that the ballot counting will be no better than what occurred in the state of Georgia in 2020.

Ukraine’s Future

But the fact is, these regions are populated by Russian-speakers who have no love for or loyalty to the anti-Russian government in Kiev; who have already lined-up for Russian citizenship in large numbers; and who, in any case, fear the retribution of the Ukrainian military and secret service far more than they fear the Russians.

Stated differently, the populations of the Donetsk (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republics (LPR) and those of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions are not begging to be “liberated” by Ukrainian armies, which are every bit as brutal and vindictive as the Russian military has been alleged to be, and surely don’t give a whit about Washington/NATO’s hypocritical malarkey about the rule of law and the sanctity of borders.

In fact, the overwhelming share of the populations (75-90%) of these regions have voted for the pro-Russian candidate in every presidential election held in the Ukraine since the Soviet Union’s mailed fist was lifted from their governance in 1991.

That is to say, they have implicitly voted for partition of a country that never existed until it was nailed together by the tyrannical rule of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev after 1922. So doing, they effected an arbitrary rearrangement of borders that plopped what had been “New Russia” for upwards of 200 years into the commie designed Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine for no better reason than it suited their whims and convenience of rule.

But now, within a matter of weeks, Ukraine’s borders will be restored to the pre-WWI status quo ante. Whether fair and square or not, the vote will be overwhelmingly in favor of separation and upon the request of the peoples of “Novorussiya”, Putin has indicated that these regions will once again become formal Russian territories.

What that means, in turn, of course, is that NATO’s war in support of the Kiev regime will become an explicit war on the territory of Russia. And that surely portends a bloody and disastrous end game because the only way it does not end up in an armistice after untold more deaths and destruction, followed by secession of the new “Russian” territories , anyway, is if Ukraine wins the war.

That’s not going to happen. Not in a blue moon.

Once Moscow takes the gloves off and savages Ukraine’s electric power grid and railway system it will be all over except the shouting. The massive flow of western armaments, which has kept Kiev in the game to date, will be drastically curtailed; and the civilian population in the Kiev-controlled areas will be left high and dry, preparing to shiver in the dark as the severe Ukrainian winter approaches.

Nor does the alleged surprise victory of Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv area in recent weeks change the scenario. What that actually accomplished was the sacrifice of thousands of Ukrainian troops in the apparent faint attack on Kherson in the south in order to regain a few thousand square miles of lightly populated open steppe around Kharkiv.

Even then, the alleged hastily retreating Russian army was not that at all. The area had been mostly occupied and defended by the lightly trained volunteers of the Republic of Luhansk, not the trained professionals of the Russian armed forces.

Now that the Ukrainian army has driven out the Luhansk volunteers and occupied the open steppe lands, it remains for Russian dominance of the air and artillery war to encircle the alleged victors and pulverize them from the air and via long-range artillery that is even now being brought into position.

That is to say, in a few weeks the Ukrainian “victory “will disappear from the MSM, just as have so many other alleged setbacks to the Russian cause.

Instead, the news will be about the brutality of the Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy and transport infrastructure; the roadblocks it will put in front of what has been the demolition derby of US/NATO supplied weaponry to the battle front; and the fact that without massive new aid from Washington beyond the $50 billion already authorized, civilian life in the Kiev-controlled portions of the country will be on the verge of collapse and the regime in Kiev will be on virtual life-support from Washington.

In short, the end game in lieu of the diplomatic settlement which could have been had long ago will be either a more unfavorable partition of Ukraine, leaving Kiev and the western regions as a bankrupt landlocked rump state and ward of the west, or an escalation that involves direct military engagement by NATO and leaves the world teetering on the edge of nuclear war.

So much for using Ukraine as cannon fodder to drastically “weaken Russia” and to force the demonized Vlad Putin from power. To the contrary, by the time Europe’s cold and dark winter is underway, it will be European governments, which slavishly did Washington’s bidding, that will be falling like dominoes.

More importantly, it will also be the new Republican majority on Capitol Hill asking our opening question of Biden’s infinitely foolish national security team: Indeed, what in the hell were you thinking?!

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution FailedThe Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

The original source of this article is

Copyright © David, 2022

Rebutting “Health Feedback’s” critique of our article “Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality”


Michael Palmer, MD and Sucharit Bhakdi, MD

On August 19, 2022, we published on this website an article [1] which summarized evidence from autopsies that demonstrated autoimmune-like inflammation in the blood vessels and tissues of patients who had died after receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. In the foci of inflammation, the vaccine-induced expression of spike protein had also been demonstrated, indicating very strongly a causal chain from vaccination to vascular and organ damage and ultimately death.

Our conclusions were disputed by Dr. Iria Carballo-Carbajal in a post on the website “Health Feedback” [2]. We here rebut Dr. Carballo-Carbajal’s more important assertions; but we will let slide some minor ones, because life is short. In the following, Dr. Carballo-Carbajal’s statements will be typeset in italics, whereas our own text will appear in upright font shape.

1. “A history of spreading misinformation”

Early on in her article Dr. Carballo-Carbajal denounces us as having “a history of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines.” In support of this statement, she merely assembles a list of links, but she makes no argument as to the facts whatsoever. Her statement therefore amounts to no more than slander.

2. Does the vaccine stay in the injection site?

If one considers the possibility of vaccine-induced damage to the organs of the body, then a crucial question is whether or not the vaccine distributes from the injection site to those organs.

In our article, we had shown data from an animal study conducted by Pfizer, which showed the rapid appearance of an intramuscularly injected model vaccine in the bloodstream and its subsequent accumulation in several organs, including the liver, the spleen, the adrenal glands, and the ovaries [3]. What our article did not say is that all of the vaccine leaves the injection site. It is indeed correct that in those rat experiments a large proportion was retained at the injection site—at least during the time period of observation, which was limited to 48 hours.

The headline of Dr. Carballo-Carbajal’s section on the subject asserts that “Only a tiny fraction of the lipid nanoparticles in COVID-19 vaccines travel through the body.”However, further down in her text she states that 52.6% are retained at one hour after the injection. What she does not mention is that already after two hours that value has dropped to below one third of the total. A problem with this entire data set, however, is that the total of all of the organs combined never adds up to 100%. Without going into too much detail, this is to be expected, given the technical difficulties of such measurements.

Not only is the exact proportion of distributed vaccine difficult to ascertain, however, but it also does not really matter. It was determined in rats, not humans, and in rats of a fairly uniform age and genetic make-up at that; and furthermore, it used a model vaccine that contained the correct lipid mixture but a different mRNA. It is illusory to base exact predictions of the distribution of the vaccine in humans on these rat data, and on this model vaccine—there is a reason why pharmacokinetics studies in humans are normally considered necessary during drug development. Distribution in humans would likely be much more variable than in these rats—injection into the highly vascularized deltoid muscle of a young athlete should result in substantially higher systemic distribution than that into the typically much less used and less perfused muscle of an elderly person.

What really matters is only this: a substantial fraction of the vaccine must be assumed to be taken up into the system, where it may give rise to spike protein expression and subsequent organ damage—and no more than this was expressed in our article. In summary, Dr. Carballo-Carbajal misrepresents both our article and the data from the Pfizer study at issue.

3. For how long is the spike protein expressed after vaccination?

Aside from the spatial distribution of the vaccine, another crucial question concerns the duration of its activity—the longer the spike protein is expressed, the more sustained and destructive the resulting autoimmune-like inflammation will be. Dr. Carballo-Carbajal’s blankly states that there is “no evidence” of long-lasting expression, and that “the idea that mRNA from COVID-19 vaccines can remain in our bodies in the long term is a common myth.”

The “common myth” is in fact supported by solid evidence. The mRNA, and the spike protein expressed from it, were demonstrated in lymph nodes near the injection site for up to 60 days after injection by Röltgen et al. [4]. Long-lasting persistence of the vaccine mRNA in skeletal muscle tissue distant from the injection site was recently reported by Magen et al. [5]. The patient in question suffered debilitating myositis (muscle inflammation). Finally, long-lasting persistence of the spike protein in the bloodstream, and therefore again long-lasting expression, was also confirmed by Bansal et al. [6]. Burkhardt’s detection of long-lasting spike protein expression by immunohistochemistry thus fits the overall picture of the available evidence, but it does extend the time horizon of persistence to up to nine months after injection.

True to form, Dr. Carballo-Carbajal addresses none of these reported findings. Instead, she focuses exclusively on one hypothetical explanation for the observed long-lasting expression, which we had proposed in our study. This explanation involved the reverse transcription of the Pfizer vaccine mRNA into DNA, which was observed in a liver cell line in vitro by Aldén et al. [7], followed by the integration of the DNA copies into the cellular genome; from such inserted copies, mRNA encoding the spike protein might then be continuously transcribed.

In her critique of our hypothesis, Dr. Carballo-Carbajal manages to present the single correct argument contained in her entire piece: she points out that Aldén et al. demonstrated the reverse transcription of the vaccine mRNA into DNA, but did not strictly show its integration into the genome. We note, however, that the LINE retrotransposons—which include LINE-1, which is far and away the most common retrotransposon in humans, and thus the one most likely to have copied the vaccine mRNA into DNA—are target-primed [8], which means that the two processes of reverse transcription and genomic insertion of the DNA are inextricably linked. Therefore, in the absence of direct evidence for or against genomic insertion, it must be considered highly likely. In any case: regardless of whether or not the DNA copies will insert into the genome, and if so, whether such inserted copies will indeed drive continued expression—the long-lasting expression of spike after vaccination as such is supported by ample evidence, all of which Dr. Carballo-Carbajal simply ignores.

4. Are Dr. Burkhardt’s findings and interpretations credible?

The autopsy findings discussed in our article were provided to us by Dr. Arne Burkhardt, an emeritus professor of pathology with extensive diagnostic experience—he has evaluated approximately 40,000 autopsies over the course of his career. He reviewed and approved the text of our article before its publication.

What arguments does Dr. Carballo-Carbajal adduce in order to discredit Dr. Burkhardt and his findings? She quotes anonymous members—how many? how senior, and with what credentials?—of the German register of COVID-19 autopsies:

The team of the German register of COVID-19 autopsies at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen … explained that the accumulation of lymphocytes was similar to “those found in many autopsy cases.” Furthermore, they said that no conclusions could be drawn from Burkhardt’s data because the criteria for selecting the cases were “unclear.”

To get the “unclear criteria for selection” out of the way: Burkhardt always clearly stated that all of the cases he reviewed were brought to his attention by the bereaved families who were seeking a second opinion, and he never extrapolated his limited case statistics to the population at large. To anyone with open eyes, those limited statistics will nevertheless be cause for grave concern.

The heart of the matter, however, are of course the pathological findings themselves. What exactly is proven by the statement that “many autopsy cases” show similar accumulations of lymphocytes? Nobody will dispute that other causes of lymphocyte infiltrations exist—such as for example autoimmune diseases or viral infections. Such diseases, however, usually have characteristic features of their own, for example the involvement of specific tissues and organs. In virus infections, one typically can find the viral antigens in the affected tissues. The detection of such viral antigens within a focus of inflammation is generally accepted as proof of causation.

And lo and behold—the same standard was applied by Burkhardt and by his his pathology colleagues, some of whom have so far not appeared in public but have very much contributed their time and expertise. The presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the inflamed tissues and blood vessels was demonstrated by immunohistochemistry, which is a standard method for detecting specific antigens (be they viral or cellular) in tissue sections. What is more, the absence of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein was also shown. Nucleocapsid will be present in patients who are infected with the virus, but it will be absent in the vaccinated, since the vaccine encodes only the spike protein. Thus, the presence of only spike protein implies that its expression must have been caused by vaccination. We further note that the expression of spike protein in heart muscle tissue samples from multiple vaccinated patients with myocarditis has in the meantime been verified by another team of pathologists [9]; and these authors, too, consider their demonstration proof of causation by the vaccine.

This, then, is the current state of the evidence, which Dr. Carballo-Carbajal would have to address in order to make a meaningful and relevant argument. However, she does not even pretend to address it; instead, she offers up some more stale third party commentary, such as this one from the The Federal Association of German Pathologists (Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen):

As far as we know, the opinions presented in the video by Professor Burkhardt and Professor Lang are currently neither sufficiently supported by scientific evidence nor are they available in a format worthy of comment.

The video referred to in this quote represents the very first public statement by Burkhardt and Lang, which dates from the summer of 2021. They shared this preliminary report because of the perceived urgency, even though the crucial corroboration by immunohistochemistry was not yet available at the time. Based on their long-standing experience, Burkhardt and Lang had understood that they were looking at novel and unusual findings, which suggested a novel and unusual cause; and as we have seen, their attribution of these findings to the vaccines has in the meantime been proven correct. Burkhardt and Lang must be commended for their courage to come out with their findings as soon as they did in order to warn the public of the dangers posed by the gene-based vaccines.

5. Summary

Throughout her entire commentary, Dr. Carballo-Carbajal has avoided to substantially address the evidence presented by Dr. Burkhardt and his colleagues, as well as our interpretations of it. Her article is quite simply a hit job without any scientific merit.


  1. Palmer, M. and Bhaki, S. (2022) Vascular and organ damage induced by mRNA vaccines: irrefutable proof of causality.
  2. Carballo-Carbajal, I. (2022) Unsubstantiated claims by Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bhakdi don’t demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines harm organs.
  3. Anonymous, (2020) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study [English translation].
  4. Röltgen, K. et al. (2022) Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Cell (preprint)
  5. Magen, E. et al. (2022) Clinical and Molecular Characterization of a Rare Case of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myositis. Vaccines 10 (preprint)
  6. Bansal, S. et al. (2021) Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines. J. Immunol. 207:2405-2410
  7. Aldén, M. et al. (2022) Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 44:1115-1126
  8. Beauregard, A. et al. (2008) The take and give between retrotransposable elements and their hosts. Annu. Rev. Genet. 42:587-617
  9. Baumeier, C. et al. (2022) Intramyocardial Inflammation after COVID-19 Vaccination: An Endomyocardial Biopsy-Proven Case Series. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23:6940

Source: Doctors For Covid Ethics

Sask. woman dies allegedly after COVID booster: Daughter in shock

A witness told that people in the drug store were screaming and crying

SASKATOON – A Saskatoon woman is in shock after her mother died suddenly in a drug store allegedly within minutes of receiving her COVID-19 booster shot on Sept. 14.

On Thursday, Stephanie Foster told that her mother Carol Pearce was visiting her at her home on the morning of Sept. 14 in Saskatoon until it was time for her appointment.

‘Her, myself and her granddaughter were laughing and having a great time,” Foster told “Our last time together. My mom left my house looking amazing!”

Pearce left for her booster shot and that would be the last time her daughter and granddaughter would see her.

‘She text me at 12:31 p.m. and said she was waiting her 15 min,” said Foster. “At 12:38 p.m. she was unconscious in [the drug store].” tracked down a witness to the alleged event and she recounted what she heard and saw.  We have agreed to let the witness remain anonymous and call her Heather as she fears losing her job. 

Heather told that she was in the store when she heard screaming and crying.

‘People started screaming,” she said.

‘People were crying, just about everybody that worked there was crying and freaking and hugging each other and just losing their [sh**],” Heather told

“They were saying in the store that it was about seven minutes,” after Pearce got the booster shot that she collapsed on the floor, said Heather.

‘It wasn’t long at all before the ambulance was there,” she said.

Death was natural causes: Sask Health

A spokesperson from Saskatchewan Health told on Thursday that Pearce’s death was from natural causes.

‘The Saskatchewan coroner’s service has investigated this instance and determined that the person died from natural causes,” Dale Hunter, communications consultant from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Health said in an email Thursday.

Foster, however, disagrees.              

‘I do not believe this was caused from natural causes. My Mom had no health conditions. I believe had she not gotten that Covid shot then she would be here with us today!

“She left for her appointment happy and energetic,” said Foster

Why did I invent the mRNA vax tech?

Inquiring minds “need” to know. “For the Sake of Humanity”?

Robert W Malone MD, MS

Sep 24

This famous C.S. Bull Portrait of Greta Garbo, used to promote Mata Hari in 1931, is one of the most recognized ‘Garbo’ images. Garbo’s most famous quote was ”I want to be alone”. In 2005, the American Film Institute voted it to be the 30th most memorable movie quote of all time. It is derived from the 1932 film Grand Hotel in which she famously said, “I want to be alone” emphasized immediately by “I just want to be alone.” Garbo seemed to enjoy this gentle self-mockery as did both the press and her studio, MGM. More history on Ms. Garbo and this quote can be found at this website.

I am increasingly convinced that the world has gone mad. As for me, I just want an off ramp from this crazy expressway to hell. I have been trying to do my best to help people all over the globe for the past two years. Constant traveling. Constant podcasting. And dealing with the constant stream of hate, derision, sneering gaslighting, and malicious defamation has just worn me out. And now it is coming at me from both sides, including people that I thought were in this foxhole with me as colleagues.

At first I was accused of just wanting attention. Of falsely claiming to have invented the technology which, in am amazing example of intentional strategic promotion of “stolen valor”, was claimed to have been invented at U Penn by Drs. Katie Kariko and Drew Weissman. Even Moderna and its key scientific founder Bob Langer seemed to find it useful to deny the many issued patents documenting my work and inventions as well as others from Vical. I could post the email exchanges I have had with Langer about this. And yes, although Kariko and Weissman were not awarded the Nobel prize last year (to the great surprise of corporate media and many in the scientific establishment), they did receive a variety of awards from all over the world with a total haul of many millions of dollars. And I did object to being written out of history on Wikipedia and corporate media in the rush to market these two to the review committee in Stockholm. But that was then. That “Nobel Prize fever” seems to have broken when they did not receive the award last year.

To be clear to the nattering nabob concern trolls, no, I did not get millions of dollars for my inventions involving mRNA. I received one Susan B Anthony dollar and a paper certificate. That was it. And a nervous breakdown.

Now the narrative has turned. I am chronically accused of being “controlled opposition”. Apparently, or so I am told, even Del Bigtree is being accused of being “controlled opposition”. And accused of being a mass murderer for inventing the technology over thirty years ago which provided the platform for development of the current mRNA vaccines. This has become a favorite trope of Stew Peters and his acolytes. I previously addressed this tortured logic in this substack essay.

Unfortunately, based on my experiences over the last few months, I conclude that a large fraction of the population has apparently lost the ability or willingness to read, and wants everything presented to them as pre-digested video.

And oh, by the way, in some of the most perverse and tortured logic I have ever encountered, most recently an American 86 year old psychiatrist (Peter Roger Breggin) has developed and promoted the theory (on whatever broadcast forum he can find) that I am a mass murderer based on my promotion of the insights of psychologist Professor Dr. Mattias Desmet (“Psychology of Totalitarianism”, “Mass formation”, “Mass psychosis”). As near as I can reconstruct, the “logic” being advanced by Dr. Breggin is built on the false assertion that Desmet’s theories somehow deny the thesis which Breggin advances in his book entitled “COVID-19 and the Global Predators, We Are the Prey”. Just be be clear, Desmet’s work is really just advancements and insights regarding the 21st century application of the work of Hannah Arendt , Joost MeerlooGustave Le Bon, and so many others reaching all the way back to the Allegory of the Cave from Plato’s RepublicMattias Desmet has written at length refuting this contrived interpretation of Breggin which has now been repeated and amplified by others including Peter McCullough, Jane Ruby, and Stew Peters. The reasoning of Dr. Breggin, as near as I can tell goes like this- somehow Dr. Desmet (and by extension, me) is promoting the idea that what has happened over the last two (+) years is the fault of the individual public, and not the fault of the “Global Predators”. Which is preventing the global predators from being held accountable for their actions. Which is enabling the continued travesty of the grossly dysfunctional global public health response including continued promotion of the “clot shots” (thank you Dr. Ryan Cole for that phrase!). Which are causing millions of deaths. For which Mattias and I are responsible. Which makes us both mass murderers. Which logic completely overlooks the Global COVID Summit declaration IV, which was rolled out on May 11, 2022. And explicitly called for stopping the SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccines, as well as many other things which were pretty edgy at the time but are increasingly mainstream. But hey, who cares. Details, details. All grist for the outrage mill. Apparently, in the current age, this is how one sells books, vitamins, and air purifiers guaranteed to remove spike protein from the air.

Please take a moment and apply just a modicum of empathy. Would you like to be called a mass murderer and have people posting that you should be hung by the neck until dead? How would you react to this?

Much of this madness seems to have fermented during the Clay Clark ReAwaken American tour, and Clay Clark seems to have facilitated the distribution of these ideas. So Jill looked up what Clay Clark has been posting about me on Twitter (which I am permanently suspended from, and hence unaware of and unable to defend myself) and found that Mr. Clark has been amplifying the hate.

So, Jill wrote to him asking about why he is being such a bully. The outcome of which was his demand that I come on his show and address the two questions of why did I create the technology, and why am I part of ACTIV.

I sent him copies of the many substacks I had written on these two topics, as well as the two hour podcast titled “Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of using “RNA as a drug” and core mRNA and DNA vaccine technologies” which I recorded Jul 27, 2021, has had almost a million views, 27,000 “likes”, no dislikes, and over 6,200 comments. It is the most comprehensive interview I have recorded on this whole history which is in the public domain. Another even more extensive version was recorded in a private movie studio in Utah last fall, but I do not have rights to that and it has not been broadcast.

But apparently that is not enough for Mr. Clark and his colleagues. He insists that I record video responses to his two questions – doing so in writing is not sufficient for him and his followers.

This whole manufactured controversy is like a monster that will not die. And yes, I recognize the logic and many voices advising that I should just ignore it. Which ignoring then becomes weaponized and recycled as more evidence supporting the theory that I am controlled opposition. No end to this cycle, which seems to be very useful in generating clicks and book sales. A gift that keeps on giving, involving malicious defamation as a sport and as a business model. I previously wrote here about this dynamic, this historical tendency of groups and political movements at this stage of development to start to apply “purity tests” on members and perceived leaders, resulting in waves of “defenestration” or decapitation in the case of the French Revolution. Or so much murder and burning of supposed “witches” at one point in history that in many Swiss towns there were few women left to kill after that fever finally broke.

So, to appease those who feel that they are entitled to forcing me to tear out and publicly display another piece of my soul “for the good of humanity” as Mr. Clark put it in an email exchange, I offer the above 45 minute clip from this long two (+) hour interview. I have also filmed an interview here on the farm yesterday in which these (and many other) questions are asked and answered. That interview by LifeSite News will come out in multiple segments, and hopefully the first will provide the answers to Clay Clark’s questions.

I previously addressed the “You are a member of ACTIV” accusation in this substack, have now re-addressed it during this recent “LifeSite News” interview, and post the previously published text below for those who can read.

But as for me, I am tired of all of this drama.

This has never been about me. I have done my best to provide leadership and healing. Increasingly I just want to be left alone.

Jill and I will continue to publish this substack, seeking truth and understanding of what has been done and is continuing to be done to all of us by the US Administrative State and the various Globalist organizations. And hopefully, by doing so day after day, we might help you – the reader, our customer- to better understand and adapt to the changing world that you are encountering.

But the chronic travel and going on every podcast that wants a slice of my day and brain, coupled with the chronic stream of hate, is driving me to a dark place. And I am not rich, I cannot afford to sue all of these malicious actors for defamation


As I tried to sleep last night, the words of the lawyers and The Judge in my lawsuit kept swirling around in my mind. The Judge’s  attitude seemed almost like they were debating the validity of a dog license !

And Recalling the words of my lawyer’s interviews some hours earlier about the case —

Reading the judgements just brought down by Judge Hinkson in British Columbia in the case  brought by Victoria lawyer Jeremy Maddock—

Recalling the judgements I read of earlier Constitutional cases in Manitoba, and British Columbia and Ontario—

Recalling the denigrating views expressed about certain citizens of our country by our Prime Minister and Chief Judge : 

I realize now that we have lost the ability to distinguish between a simple commodity for trade and the values and principles that are meant to bind a country together .

A Constitution is not a Trade Agreement. 

We are not talking milk and egg quotas , a lumber deal between the US and Canada, a monetary policy of interest rates and inflation, debts and deficits, GDP, and trade imbalances. And all the horse trading that is embedded in all this . 

When Socrates stood before the Athenian Jury millennium ago , around 590 BC , he knew the jig was up——freedom , liberty , free speech would be traded away, it was too dangerous for the power elite . Cicero knew he was fighting a loosing battle in the Senate with the Authoritarians of his day as he fought for the rights of the Sicilians .

Socrates knew he would have to take the poison. 

When I was in Ottawa this year with the courageous Truckers , the cloud hung over the multitude—-the power elite would not negotiate —and The Emergencies Act followed—-the power elite were scared their power was crumbling. Defending freedom like Socrates must be stopped. Even the terms of reference assessing the Emergencies Act validity is be determined by the Government who imposed the Act !

When I , along with others , began a lawsuit through the Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms seeking to protect our constitutional right of mobility who would  have thought that this so called expedited process would still be ongoing and  that our Federal Government would be attempting to block the case from even being heard. Using legal  tricks , especially relevant description in this case of freedom and rights , Constitutional protected rights and freedoms, one would have thought such a ploy , should I say ‘play ‘  wound never be even considered or entertained. One would have thought the Government would want constitutional validity of what they were doing! 

We have lost our moral compass and have allowed principles and values to become commodities , tradable even by the courts——mootness must now be negotiated  before we know whether we have any right of mobility under Section 6 of the Charter.  Judge Hinkson ‘measures ‘ whether enough liberty has been taken away to infringe upon the value, principle of ‘Life, Liberty and Security Of the Person In our Charter , our Constitution. A Judge in Manitoba just ‘believes ‘ the state’s narrative in the face of credible independent evidence.  

Your honour I understood your role was : ‘to protect freedom not limit it. ‘ I thought that the onus was on those trying to limit it to prove this . Yet we see you taking upon yourselves  to determine the limits on personal liberty all based upon a circumstance that was and is  unscientific by an objective measure.  

Jeremy Maddock who took the case of liberty to the BC Supreme Court says about the decision  limiting his freedom :

“If this precedent stands, [the government] can make your life as inconvenient or unpleasant or uncomfortable as it wants to without infringing your right to liberty.”  

I remember the King James version of the Bible,  excerpt from 1st Corinthians  

‘When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. — 1 Corinthians 13:11, King James Version.’


‘For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face:’

Or more ominously Wordsworth’s famous words —‘ the still sad music of humanity .’

Values don’ t die or fade away or be replaced like trade agreements —

They last ——that’s why Socrates, Cicero , the Magna Carta, and Voltaire , The American Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers,  the early French Revolution are all still relevant . They speak of values, principles —-freedom and liberty —-that will never die as long as we retain our humanity. 

That’s what Constitutions are suppose to be —to encompass values , principles . That’s why Section 52 of the Constitution Act says :

52 (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

And why it is difficult to change. Deliberately! Democracy must reign for it to be changed. 

Even last generation pop song writers got it right when they lamented in song : ‘Is Nothing Sacred Anymore——‘

And your honour, the intent of Section 1 of the Charter was for it to be used only when the state was in peril , war or insurrection——-there was no circumstance in the last two years  when this condition existed. This idea of the framers was clearly expressed in Section 4 of the Charter :

‘2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.’

Do you think it plausible that the framers would include the extending of sitting of parliament under war and invasion , insurrection and not the rights and freedoms that they were enshrining for the first time in the Constitution?

Furthermore , even if the intent was not clear , and in my view it is, the tests in Section 1 , especially of ‘demonstrably justify in a free and democratic society’ have not been met by those Governments who have tried to argue  they met the Charter conditions and imposed draconian , charter breaking measures. Where are the cost benefit analysis to give meaning to demonstrable justify? There are none!!! Where are the parliamentary debates and supervision to give meaning to in a ‘free and democratic society . ‘ There were none. 

In the last days an American Federal Judge has ruled 

 ‘In the ruling permanently enjoining the vaccine and mask mandate in 24 states, U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty writes:

The public interest is served by maintaining the constitutional structure and 

maintaining the liberty of individuals who do not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. 

This interest outweighs Agency Defendants’ interests. The public has a liberty interest in 

not being required to take a vaccine or be fired from their jobs. The public interest must be 

taken into account before allowing Agency Defendants to mandate vaccines. Although 

vaccines arguably serve the public interest, the liberty interests of individuals mandated 

to take the COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any interest generated by the mandatory 

administration of vaccines.”

This is the crux of the matter —where does personal freedoms and rights stand with you concerning our Charter provisions and what is now happening in our country? Will fear , bad science and government dictate overrule fair and reasonable assessment —-will rights and freedoms gain their rightful, elevated place in the pantheon of democracy’s values —or just another degraded bargaining chip leading to our democratic decline ? 

Your courts use in many of its judgements intent, context to render a fair decision. Such is needed now. 

Sadly, It seems clear to me now as the last living first Minister who signed the 1981 Patriation Agreement that was to become The Constitution Act 1982 that since its inception two things have occurred which have limited our liberty and freedom and the integrity our Constitution :

  1. From its inception the process on how our Charter came together was abused and wrongly described .

But more importantly ,  as your courts ignored in their decisions the two principles that the framers deliberately inserted at the introduction of the Charter  ——‘supremacy of God and the rule of law’ ——-there was the undermining of values, principles and permanence necessary for individual rights and freedoms to be paramount in the conduct of our democracy. 

If this cannot be restored , given the failed state of the other two branches and the failure of the fourth estate , the press, ( none carried any news on this weeks Federal Court hearing on rights and freedoms ) our democracy is in deep peril.

Individual Rights and Freedoms are not bargaining chips in a trade war—but fundamental , permanent values and principles in the pursuit of satisfying the ‘supremacy of God and the rule of law, the foundational principles girding our Charter of Rights  and Freedoms , an integral part of The Constitution Act 1982. 

Honourable A. Brian Peckford