I'm 100% behind your message, but I suggest that "vaccine against propaganda" might not be the right way to convey it. Some of the most successful corporate propaganda has gone toward convincing us that vaccines are inherently "safe and effective". The COVID vaccines have more victims than the Sacklers.

Expand full comment

Please provide proof. And don't do it by sending me a link to some "doctor" on Youtube. I want to see official documentation.

Expand full comment

What did you want proof of?

Expand full comment

"The COVID vaccines have more victims than the Sacklers."

Expand full comment

I'll start by confessing that the data on COVID vaccine deaths is not being published by the governments that have direct access. Opioid overdose deaths are also low-balled by reporting agencies. Good data are hard to come by. This graph suggests about 250,000 American OD deaths since 2000 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates Here's another estimate at 450,000 https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates

There have been several plausible estimates of COVID vaccine deaths derived in independent ways from publicly available data. Here's a summary I wrote of 5 estimates. As of a year and a half ago, I estimated 200,000 to 500,000 American deaths. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/how-many-people-have-covid-vaccines Here's another study I did: https://experimentalfrontiers.scienceblog.com/2022/08/31/covid-deaths-and-vaccine-deaths/

Group life insurance companies reported that they had no increased claims in 2020, but in the second half of 2021, when COVID vaccines were mandated by most US employers, their death claims were up 40%. https://rumble.com/v2ailv0-tucker-carlson-interview-ed-dowd.html

A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that 1/4 of Americans believe they know someone who has died from a COVID vaccine. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/killer_jab_24_say_someone_they_know_died_from_covid_19_vaccine

I don't regard Steve Kirsch as an unbiased source, but FWIW, here's his estimate: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/we-have-won-the-covid-vaccine-killed

Mark Skidmore was widely attacked for publishing this study, in which he found that about 1/3 as many people had died of the COVID vaccine compared to the COVID virus. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates Judge for yourself whether the study was flawed or whether a coordinated chorus of media trolls were exactly the kind of corporate propaganda that Nader is talking about.

This is not proof. It's the best estimate I've been able to make from publicly-available data and I think it makes my claim plausible.

Expand full comment

So the CDC is lying?

Reports of Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination

Multiple factors contribute to reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination, including heightened public awareness of COVID-19 vaccines, requirements under FDA authorization for COVID-19 vaccines that healthcare providers report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS (even if it is unclear whether the vaccine was the cause), and reporting requirements in CDC vaccine provider agreements. People receiving COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to die from COVID-19 and its complications and are at no greater risk of death from non-COVID causes, than unvaccinated people.

CDC scientists and partners have performed detailed assessments of deaths after COVID-19 vaccination and made the information available to healthcare providers and the public.

A Safety Study Evaluating Non-COVID-19 Mortality Risk Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Synopsis: This study found that rates of death among people who received COVID-19 vaccines were lower than those of people who did not receive COVID-19 vaccines. In the largest study of its kind to date, the authors found no increased risk of death among people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen (J&J/Janssen) COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Non-COVID-19 Mortality Risk—Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020-July 31, 2021

Synopsis: Using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), this study found that rates of death among people who received COVID-19 vaccines were lower than those of people who did not receive COVID-19 vaccines. The authors determined that there is no increased risk of death among COVID-19 vaccine recipients, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized for use in the United States.

Reporting Rates for VAERS Death Reports Following COVID-19 Vaccination, December 14, 2020-November 17, 2021

Synopsis: The authors of this study analyzed VAERS reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination and found that rates of death after vaccination were lower than background rates of death from any cause in the general population. The findings in this study do not suggest an association between COVID-19 vaccination and overall increased rates of death.

Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe

Synopsis: The authors of this study reviewed the initial six months of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety data from December 2020 through June 2021 in VAERS and v-safe and found that the most commonly reported side effects of mRNA vaccines were mild and short in duration and that the majority of reported adverse events were not serious. The authors also reviewed death reports submitted to VAERS and found no unusual patterns of death following mRNA vaccination.

Expand full comment

More from the CDC:

Myocarditis and Pericarditis after COVID-19 Vaccination

Myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis is inflammation of the outer lining of the heart. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, and most cases have been reported after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

To date, evidence indicates that the benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risk of myocarditis. CDC and FDA will continue to monitor for and evaluate reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. Learn more about myocarditis and pericarditis, including clinical considerations, after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

Data from VSD and from VAERS indicate that rates of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination are highest among males in their late teens and early 20s, usually following the second dose of the vaccine.

CDC scientists have conducted detailed reviews of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccines and have made the information available to healthcare providers and the public.

Incidence of Myocarditis/Pericarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Among Children and Younger Adults in the United States

Synopsis: Using VSD data, this study found that from December 14, 2020, through May 31, 2022 (for people ages 18-39 years) and from December 14, 2020, through August 20, 2022 (for people ages 5-17 years), 320 potential cases of myocarditis and pericarditis developed within 1-98 days after vaccination. Out of 320 potential cases, 224 were verified, with 137 occurring 0-7 days after vaccination: 18 after the first dose and 119 after the second dose. Adolescent males were shown to have higher incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis.

Outcomes at least 90 days onset of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents and young adults in the USA: a follow-up surveillance study

Synopsis: This study found that approximately 80% of patients diagnosed with myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were considered recovered by healthcare providers at least 90 days following onset of symptoms. CDC collected the data through follow-up surveys for people ages 12-29 years for whom a report of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was made to VAERS from December 2020 through November 2021.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination

Synopsis: The authors of this study reviewed health records of a diverse population to assess any risk of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with receiving an mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. From December 14, 2020, through January 15, 2022, 41 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported after receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and 38 were reported after receipt of the Moderna vaccine. In most cases, patients were hospitalized for one day or less, but no patients required intensive care. Both vaccines showed an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis among young males ages 18-39 years. Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was higher after receipt of the Moderna vaccine than after receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine within 0-7 days after administration.

Myocarditis or Pericarditis Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination

Synopsis: This study revealed that a longer period between mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses one and two may lower the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. Data from VSD were evaluated for reported rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after receipt of an mRNA vaccine (Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech). Results showed reported rates of myocarditis or pericarditis were higher after vaccination with Moderna than with Pfizer-BioNTech and were higher among adolescents and young adult males following the second dose.

Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021

Synopsis: This study found that there was a small but increased risk for myocarditis following receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. After a review of reports submitted to VAERS, this study found that the risk of myocarditis was highest following the second vaccine dose among adolescents and young adult males.

Expand full comment

I’ve been reading a book entitled “The Great Taking” written by David Roger’s Webb

This book is about taking collateral (all of it), the end game xof the current globally synchronous debt accumulation super cycle.

It has been promised that there will be no taxpayer bailout this time as if that is a good thing. Why? Simply because this will allow the banks to be closed rather than nationalized. Then all deposits and assets will be taken by the “protector class” of secured creditors. This is where it’s going. It’s a hybrid war!

I’m putting this out to you Ralph to read and do a commentary on it asap. As if the geopolitical shenanigans .. life , death , enslavement etc is what has been bestowed upon us is the greatest horror; this book gives the details of why and how . Please read and comment. Shocked to the bone! This book is available in pdf for free.

Expand full comment

I would also like you to look into this, Ralph Nader. It is very difficult if not impossible for the ordinary person without economic expertise and experience to understand and evaluate this material accurately and to discriminate between conspiracy theory and inconceivable reality. Here is a quote from the book:

"In order to convey to you what has been done, let me start with an analogy: Let’s say that you have purchased an automobile for cash. Having no debt against the vehicle, you believe that you now own it outright. Despite that, the auto dealer has been allowed by a newly invented legal concept to treat your car as his asset, and to use it as collateral to borrow money for his own purposes. Now the auto dealer has become bankrupt, and your vehicle along with all of the others sold by the dealer are seized by certain secured creditors of the dealership, with no judicial review being necessary, as legal certainty was previously established that they have absolute power to take your car in the event of the bankruptcy of the dealer.

Now, to be clear, I am not talking about your car! I am illustrating the horror and simplicity of the lie: You are led to believe that you own something, but someone else secretly controls it as collateral. And they have now established legal certainty that they have absolute power to

take it immediately in the event of insolvency, and not your insolvency, but insolvency of the people who secretly gave them your property as collateral. It does not seem possible. But this is exactly what has been done with all tradable financial instruments, globally! The proof of this

is absolutely irrefutable. This is wired to go now."

Expand full comment

No such thing as a 'taxpayer bailout'. Doesn't exist. On the other hand, the policy which sees the ordinary citizen having to forgo government spending (as austerity) because a vast amount of fiscal space has been used to prop up the business market, which is then syphoned off into the corporate pocket, really is a thing. The difference is important.

Expand full comment

I’m glad that the topic of PACER is mentioned in this episode. There was some talk about Congress making PACER free to use as part of the 2023 omnibus appropriations bill, but I don’t think anything came from that unless I missed something. I know there were conflicting reports from the Congressional Budget Office about PACER reforms.

Anyway, there is absolutely no reason, aside from public macroeconomic ignorance, for there to be fees associated with downloading documents from PACER. The CBO’s point about the lack of fees adding to the national deficit is nothing but an austerity scare tactic used to keep the people away from accessing their Judiciary’s work. The assumption that the deficit is of concern is an incorrect assumption pushed by the likes of Milton Friedman and now parroted by many progressives for some odd reason. The assumption that the Judiciary will be underfunded without PACER fees is also blarney. All Congress has to do is increase appropriations for the Judiciary. This does not involve ‘taxpayer money’. To tie this in to Donald Cohen’s discussion, this is nothing but corporate BS.

On a somewhat related note, there has been talk about the open-access publishing of higher education research in recent years. This is especially true with federally-funded research. Many academics are wanting to publish via open-access publishing, but there are barriers put up by the private publishing companies who want to maintain a monopoly on research that is often federally or state-funded. Certainly with federally-funded research, the federal government should have an operation that allows for academics to have the production costs, peer-review costs, and other publication costs covered publicly and then the public should have immediate access to this research online without cost. As it is, access to public research can be very restricted unless someone has access to a university library. Of course, the university libraries are having to pay a lot of money to access research which was publicly funded! This is a very undemocratic process. Research should be funded for the public good and, thus, it should be available to the public without restrictions put into place by an unnecessarily privatized publishing system.

Regarding David’s point about nationalizing industries, I think the idea of nationalizing industries has become a one-sided narrative. Nationalization is often only presented as government taking over failed corporations. I don’t think nationalization should be confined to ‘saving’ failed businesses. Rather, it can just as easily be used as an engine towards public goals such as creating royalty-free development research for healthcare, green energy, and so forth. This helps steer and support private and public industry domestically, but this intellectual property can be transferred to the developing world so that those countries can manufacturer their own medication and green technology. This helps serve global environmental and health needs.

That said, tight regulation of industry is absolutely necessary and the auto industry is an example of that. Fuel economy standards for cars largely ignored trucks and SUVs and so the industry started marketing overpriced, oversized cars in those segments which completely defeated the intent of improving fuel efficiency. I’ve read reports that due to the SUVification of the last decade or so, the average fuel economy of a new automobile today is lower than a decade ago! Scandalous! These new SUVs and trucks also have poor visibility and have been linked to increasing auto-pedestrian collisions.

Weak regulation is absolutely to blame here and corporate BS is certainly a factor in why there is a lack of regulation. The industry claims nobody wants the more fuel efficient styles of cars people were buying a decade ago, but the industry spent a lot more money marketing SUVs and trucks (convincing people, for example, that they need an SUV to drive their pets around aimlessly) and, in many cases, the manufacturers just outright discontinued regular cars in favor of SUVs even though the regular cars were still selling in fairly large numbers. In the case of GM and many others, the new SUVs are foreign made, even if they are expensive, when the cheaper sedans they replaced were more likely to be US-made. Ford and Chrysler no longer sell fuel efficient sedans. GM only has one model, the Malibu, and it is the only lower-priced car or SUV assembled in the US (at a UAW plant in Kansas). However, I fully expect this model to be discontinued since GM has largely ignored the Malibu for years and it’ll probably be replaced by a foreign-made SUV which is less fuel efficient and more expensive to buy. Yes, corporate BS, but this could have been prevented by regulation.

Expand full comment

If you offer enough money you will find someone that will say whatever corporate bullshit you want them to say.

Sometimes that person will believe what they are saying but often it is obvious they know they are spewing bullshit.

One example of the obvious bullshit was back when passing Obamacare was being debated.

There were several pundits from the conservative think tanks that did not want a public option in Obamacare making the argument that a public option would take away choices for citizens and they wanted to preserve choice in health care insurance.

They explained that the free market of the private insurance industry with several insurance companies for citizens to choose from that the competition would keep prices down.

Then they said that if citizens were able to SELECT a public option that polls showed more than 60% of citizens would SELECT the public option leaving not enough of a market share for the private insurance industry to have enough of a market share to support several insurance companies taking away the ability for citizens to have a choice.

Yet they were never asked (even on Washington Journal) how you SELECT a public option without making a choice.

Expand full comment

It's pretty much the same argument going on in the Netherlands currently. Their system was thrown to the markets and privatized in 2005, in less than 20 years it has become an unaffordable fiasco. And yet, when the socialist party ran with the policy of universal healthcare it was rejected. They're running on it now and it will be rejected. It's not that people don't want it, but they believe the lie that it is 'unaffordable' and that a public service requires a market to make it affordable.

Expand full comment

Many truths as usual from Ralph and his team. Ralph and Chris Hedges are 2 of the very few subscriptions I take. In UK just one: Tess Lawrie, founder of the World Council for Health. Between your exposure of the effects of corporate greed and the WCH's exposure of current appalling medical practice we all have a better chance of getting closer to a decent unexploited, healthy life. Dr Jo East Anglia.

Expand full comment

The Jewish Question

Yes, I know what this implies historically; the worst currents of which seem to be resurfacing. The evangelical right isn't actually concerned with Jewish people per se or for the continued existence of Israel. They only care about their fantasy version of End Times, where the Jews are expected to follow the religious script projected on them. Add to that the tunnel vision of the neocons, who now predominate in the State Department, and the possibilities for disaster expand exponentially.

Israel came to be in part because it was obvious that the rest of the world didn't care about the horrific genocide Jews suffered. It is understandable why "never again." But that is not carte blanche for any and all violence in the name of survival. A large percentage of Israeli and American Jews are appalled at Netanyahu's policies, especially when justifying the slaughter of children. Obviously, then, it is not only fine to criticize the current government of Israel and U.S. government support for it, but our right to do so. Maybe even our duty.

However, I draw the line at what is becoming common among dogmatic leftists--de facto antisemitism. There is a long thread of comments on Chris Hedges' post "The Horror, The Horror." I had to call out "What's the difference between a Jew and a Proud Boy? A Jew is more violent." So like Reagan on redwoods, seen one, seen 'em all. This nastiness, overt Naziness, glosses over the fact it is precise about which Southerners or white people or right wingers are wrong, yet condemns all Jews, no nuance required. It's the type of "joke" that accepts persecution of all Jews; same old scapegoat but for new reasons.

Expand full comment

Ralph often talks about shareholders not having a say. Here's someone he might want to interview soon. This is his episode on big banks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGIMDFauu2s&list=TLPQMjQwMjIwMjRKIrasZc6o0Q&index=5&ab_channel=CountEverything

Expand full comment

Folks have also stopped trusting liberal media and the government, for good reason. Of course right wing media is also crap. The current role of all corporate media, conservative and liberal, is as corporate propaganda. Which is functionally garbage, making people stupid.

Expand full comment

Christianne Northrop was the most trusted voice in women’s health until she reported on the disastrous pandemic response in 2020. Now she’s de-platformed.

Joseph Mercola was America’s favorite alternative doctor until he started talking about the COVID vaccines. Now he’s a quack.

Meryl Nass was a country doctor in Maine who had an expertise in bioweapons that was respected in government reports and Congressional testimony. After she spoke out about COVID, the Maine Medical Board took her license away.

Naomi Wolf was a trusted academic voice in American feminism until she started publishing about vaccine side effects. Now she’s a a kook.

Vera Sharav was a Holocaust survivor and well-regarded writer on medical freedom. Then she published “Never Again is Now”, calling the COVID vaccines a “second Holocaust”. She’s an anti-semite.

Peter McCullough was one of the most highly respected academic cardiologists in the world, with hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. He lost his job at Baylor Medical College for speaking out about COVID.

In the early ‘90s, Robert Malone developed and patented the mRNA technology that is the basis of the COVID vaccines. Beginning in 2021, he told us that the mRNA technology is inherently unsafe, and should never have been used in vaccines. Last month, the Nobel Prize was awarded to two of his associates who followed in his footsteps, and not a word was said about Dr Malone’s pioneering role.

Harvey Risch, Geert vanden Bosche, David Katz, John Ioannidis, Aseem Malhotra, and Michael Yeadon were all highly-respected professionals with expertise in the epidemiology of vaccines until their careers were trashed because they spoke out against the COVID vaccines.

Everyone who has spoken the truth about the COVID vaccines has paid with their careers. Everyone who has supported the narrative of the health establishment has been rewarded.

Expand full comment

Twice as many people died of "Covid" in 2021 compared to 2020, but it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

In the trial data that Pfizer submitted to FDA, more people died in the vaccine arm than in the placebo arm, but it had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Absenteeism at work and disability claims rose dramatically in 2021 and stayed up through the present, but it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

There are 50 times as many reports to VAERS in 2021 than in any previous year, but it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

Fertility is down and miscarriages are up in America and much of Europe, but it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

People are dying on soccer fields. Celebrities are canceling their tours. People in their 20s are getting heart attacks. Embalmers are reporting rubbery blood clots in the veins of people who died.

But it has nothing to do with the vaccines.

Expand full comment

You can download data from the CDC's VAERS website, https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html, as I have done, to confirm that about 3 times as many people have died from the COVID vaccines compared to the entire 30 year history of vaccine deaths before COVID. Data is summarized conveniently at OpenVAERS.com, and I have personally checked that their presentation matches what I download directly from CDC.

Expand full comment

No-one is interested in conspiracy theory rabbit holes.

Expand full comment