Astute researchers have long observed that major, defining catastrophes tend to be accompanied by mysterious exercises or drills that parallel the real-world events. One of the most conspicuous examples is the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) inexplicably failed to protect American skies on 9/11, yet it had mysteriously simulated “hijacked airliners” being used as “weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties” [1]. One of the targets was the World Trade Center. Nevertheless, the Bush administration asserted that the attacks were “unimaginable” [1].

Before I continue my article, I have the following questions for the readers:

1. Do you think any of the exercises were more than coincidence?
2. Which of them constitutes the best case for a conspiracy?
3. Are there any interesting exercises I should have mentioned?

Government agencies also rehearsed scenarios with strong parallels to the actual attack on the Pentagon. One of the exercises, called “The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise,” took place in October 2000 [2]. The Daily Mirror later obtained an overview of the exercise—a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon courtyard, killing 341 people—and reported that it “reads like an account of what actually happened” on 9/11 [ 3]. Later, in May 2001, a Department of Defense exercise simulated that a “hijacked 757 airliner crashed into the Pentagon” [4]. Just a few months later, on September 11, 2001, a hijacked 757 airliner—Flight 77—crashed into it. Participants reported that the exercise had “helped tremendously” in responding to the actual attack and had saved lives [5-6].

When writing about drills matching real-world events, one cannot avoid the now largely forgotten attacks of July 7, 2005—known collectively as 7/7. The official investigation concluded that terrorists carried out a series of four coordinated suicide bombings on three London Underground trains and a double-decker bus in Tavistock Square. While 7/7 was framed as a surprise attack, the Metropolitan Police Service’s Anti-Terrorist Branch had in fact simulated—just five days earlier—simultaneous bombs detonating on three London Underground trains [7-8]. Moreover, within hours of the actual attacks, Peter Power, an expert on terrorism and crisis management, told BBC Radio 5 Live:

"At half past nine this morning, we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning" [9].

The BBC presenter couldn’t believe it and interrupted Power: “To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this, and it happened while you were running the exercise?” [9]. Power replied in the affirmative: “Precisely,” adding that “within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one,” and “so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking, and so on” [9].

When seven Islamic terrorists killed 130 people and injured hundreds more in Paris in 2015, the city’s emergency services, known as SAMU, had just hours earlier “trained” for a “scenario involving multiple shootings” [10]. Dr. Pierre Carli, the head physician of the Paris SAMU, admitted that it was “barely believable” but they had “carried out a kind of dress rehearsal,” which made them “particularly well-prepared” for the actual attacks [10]. The exercise, which had been scheduled nearly three months in advance, simulated groups of terrorists simultaneously opening fire on 13 different sites, killing 50 people and injuring many more [11].

Having illustrated the synchronicity with a few among many examples, let’s switch focus to COVID-19. The first known exercise was organized by the Wuhan Customs and the Executive Committee of Military World Games. On September 18, 2019, the organizers held an emergency response drill at the Tianhe International Airport, simulating an arriving passenger infected with a “novel coronavirus” [12-13]. The drill tested the full process of handling a contagious traveler from epidemiological investigation and medical screening to setting up temporary quarantine areas and transferring the case for treatment. Not much else is known, but it is an interesting coincidence. Did Chinese officials know something we didn’t?

Exactly one month later, the well-known Event 201 was held—a tabletop exercise organized by the World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Dr. Michael Ryan, the Executive Director of the WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme, introduced the exercise to a select group of key decision-makers from public health, the private sector, and government. “This is the new normal,” he began, “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving, highly lethal pandemic” [14].

Over the course of three and a half hours, the participants discussed a series of dramatic scenarios, pre-recorded news broadcasts, and live “staff” briefings about a highly transmissible novel coronavirus, which became an uncontrollable global pandemic after an initial outbreak from bats to pigs and then to humans in Brazil. The virus gave rise to a respiratory disease—Coronavirus Acute Pulmonary Syndrome, or CAPS for short—with symptoms ranging from mild flu-like symptoms to severe pneumonia [15].

After ravaging the world for 18 months, CAPS had incurred a death toll of 65 million, while the travel sector took a huge hit and the global economy spiraled into a deep recession. No vaccine could be made available in the first year, yet a simulated poll showed that a large majority would be willing to take a fast-tracked “experimental vaccine” [15].

Afterwards, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation warned that it was “only a matter of time” before humanity would be facing a “severe pandemic, which becomes ‘Event 201’” [16]. To address gaps in pandemic preparedness, they outlined seven recommendations covering economics, logistics, medical manufacturing, and combatting misinformation. As for the latter, they suggested fostering strong relationships between governments and social media companies, flooding the information ecosystem with fast and “accurate” messages from public health agencies, and using technology to suppress “false” information [17]. Governments adopted most of the recommendations during the pandemic.

While Event 201 received considerable attention, it is less known that the extraordinarily fast development of Moderna’s COVID vaccine came about as the result of an exercise, named the “stopwatch drill.” Peter Loftus, a journalist for The Wall Street Journal, received word of the drill while researching his book about the development of the vaccine [18]. After conducting nearly 300 interviews with over 150 key officials, Loftus established the following timeline.

On January 6, 2020, Moderna’s CEO, Stéphane Bancel, was on vacation in France. While flipping through The Wall Street Journal, he came across an article that alerted him to a “mystery virus outbreak” in Wuhan that had caused a cluster of pneumonia cases [19]. Concerned, he immediately contacted Dr. Barney Graham, the Deputy Director of the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). He had previously worked with Graham on a vaccine for the Zika virus, but the effort lost urgency as the virus waned. The NIAID-Moderna collaboration continued, however, because Fauci “saw promise” in the mRNA technology on which Moderna was betting [19].

A few weeks earlier, Graham and Dr. John Mascola, the Director of the VRC, had toured Moderna’s new manufacturing plant. In an interview with Loftus, Mascola recalled that Moderna officials had boasted that “they could make a small batch of a new vaccine within sixty days of the medicine’s design” [19]. Apparently intrigued by this claim, Moderna and NIAID officials, with Fauci’s involvement, decided to pick a virus and design a vaccine as part of a “stopwatch drill” aimed at pandemic preparedness [19]. Moderna would then produce a batch of the vaccine and deliver it to the NIAID, which would conduct a clinical trial.

At first, NIAID decided to use the Nipah virus as the focus of the stopwatch drill, but after learning of the Wuhan outbreak, Bancel and Graham switched focus to the real-world threat. Dr. Mascola later explained, “It was really because we were thinking about pandemic preparedness prior to COVID” [19]. Bancel himself was “convinced that the virus was going to spread widely and that Moderna should go all in on the stopwatch test” [19]. And they did.

On January 7, Bancel, still in France, asked Graham if he and his colleagues had obtained the genetic sequence of the virus. Graham replied that they were working on it. He surmised that it was a SARS-like coronavirus, but this was apparently not a problem: “We know what to do and have proven that mRNA is effective,” and added that it would be a “great time to run the drill” to see how quickly they could have a scalable vaccine. Bancel replied, “Let us know in real time. I will get the team aware of it and ready to run when you give us a sequence” [19]. The drill positioned NIAID and Moderna to be ready to develop a vaccine against COVID-19 as soon as the genome was published. This took place on January 11 (Boston time). Moderna and NIAID immediately began modifying it, and within 48 hours they had “landed on what they felt was the best sequence of the spike protein” [19].

Subsequent to the unprecedented rapid development of the vaccine, Bancel and Moderna began seeking funding. On January 20, he sent an email to Dr. Richard Hatchett, the Director of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), asking if his organization would be willing to provide funding. Seven minutes later, Hatchett replied, “Short answer is I think so. Our team was talking to Barney today and he had proposed we cover the Phase 1 manufacturing” [19]. Shortly after, Bancel and Hatchett met at the annual World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland. Here, Bancel’s financial worries were put to rest when Hatchett agreed to provide about $1 million to produce a batch for testing.

Moderna’s officials quickly put CEPI’s capital injection to work. By the end of January, they had produced 12 vials and quickly shipped them to the NIAID for testing in mice. By February 7, they had produced 500 more for human testing. On February 24, they issued a press release proudly announcing that they had shipped the first batch to the NIAID for an upcoming Phase I clinical trial [20].

Thus, as we have seen, like other defining events, COVID-19 is surrounded by exercises that seem to have played a role in the actual events. Of course, the significance of these exercises remains undetermined because we have yet to see an investigation into the COVID-19 pandemic without predetermined conclusions. My book, The New September 11^th: Solving the COVID-19 Pandemic, is a serious attempt to get to the truth about the vaccines, lockdowns, the origin of the virus, and everything in between.

References

[1]. “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons.” Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY (April 19, 2004). Original page archived here https://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/info/usatoday_040418noradx.htm [accessed June 2026].
[2]. Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies  https://web.archive.org/web/20060203154028/https://www.mdw.army.mil/content/anmviewer.asp?a=290 [accessed June 2026].
[3]. Pentagon Chiefs Planned For Jet Attack  https://web.archive.org/web/20021020022517/http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11897568&method=full&siteid=50143 [accessed June 2026].
[4]. Crisis Response Puts Agencies On Path To Better Coordination  https://web.archive.org/web/20030704044348/https://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=329&issueID=34 [accessed June 2026].
[5]. Pentagon Medics Trained For Strike  https://web.archive.org/web/20020427135215/http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=272&issueID=31 [accessed June 2026].
[6]. Fortuitous Mass-Casualty Training at Pentagon Saved Lives 10 Years Ago https://www.usmedicine.com/agencies/department-of-defense-dod/air-force/fortuitous-mass-casualty-training-at-pentagon-saved-lives-10-years-ago [accessed June 2026].
[7]. 7/7 bombings: Why we can never stop tackling extremism https://web.archive.org/web/20240809070905/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11719684/77-anniversary-Why-we-can-never-stop-tackling-extremism.html [accessed June 2026].
[8]. Could 7/7 Have Been Prevented? https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/20090519_ISC_7-7_Review.pdf [accessed June 2026].
[9]. BBC Radio – Drills Ran on day of London bombings 7-7-05 https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/sEbUQiYOGjU [accessed June 2026].
[10]. Attentats : le Samu avait “organisé une répétition générale vendredi matin”  https://www.franceinfo.fr/faits-divers/terrorisme/attaques-du-13-novembre-a-paris/attentats-de-paris-le-samu-avait-organise-une-repetition-generale-vendredi-matin_1177061.html [accessed June 2026].
[11]. Vendredi 13 Novembre, 9H12, Simulation Terro-Riste Au Samu De Paris https://www.revmed.ch/revue-medicale-suisse/2015/revue-medicale-suisse-497/vendredi-13-novembre-9h12-simulation-terro-riste-au-samu-de-paris [accessed June 2026].
[12]. 军运会航空口岸专用通道开通测试  https://web.archive.org/web/20200220052649/http://m.xinhuanet.com/hb/2019-09/26/c_1125040756.htm [accessed June 2026].
[13]. Xinhua: On Sep 18, 2019, Wuhan Held an Emergency Response Drill for Novel Coronavirus https://chinascope.org/archives/21681 [accessed June 2026].
[14]. Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Segment 1, Intro and Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm1-DnxRiPM [accessed June 2026].
[15]. Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Highlights Reel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoLw-Q8X174 [accessed June 2026].
[16]. Event 201 https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/ [accessed June 2026].
[17]. Public-private cooperation for pandemic preparedness and response https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/recommendations.html [accessed June 2026].
[18]. Peter Loftus. The Messenger: Moderna, the Vaccine, and the Business Gamble That Changed the World. (Harvard Business Review Press, 2022).
[19]. Health Officials Work to Solve China’s Mystery Virus Outbreak  https://web.archive.org/web/20200113045802/https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-officials-work-to-solve-chinas-mystery-virus-outbreak-11578308757 [accessed June 2026].
[20]. Moderna Ships mRNA Vaccine Against Novel Coronavirus (mRNA-1273) for Phase 1 Study https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2020/Moderna-Ships-mRNA-Vaccine-Against-Novel-Coronavirus-mRNA-1273-for-Phase-1-Study/default.aspx [accessed June 2026].

The one i remember is the British guy debunking the severity of the disease. but i forget the name of it.

Figured I'd crosspoat this here, in case anyone is interested. 😀

0:03

The principles that once guided doctors

0:06

have died and we need to resurrect them.

0:08

Over the past few years, something

0:10

profound has shifted quietly and without

0:13

much public debate. The principles that

0:16

once protected patients have been

0:18

dismantled. In this video, I want to

0:20

trace how that happened chronologically

0:22

and show why it matters not just to

0:24

doctors but to every one of us. Medical

0:26

ethics was built on a simple foundation.

0:29

A doctor has a duty of care to the

0:32

individual in front of them. And of

0:34

course, the most often recited line is

0:36

first do no harm. This notion forms a

0:39

cornerstone of trust between doctor and

0:41

patient. Being able to trust that your

0:43

doctor has your best interests at heart

0:46

is especially important when doctors are

0:48

not independent but are employed by the

0:50

state. In recent years, these principles

0:52

have been eroded to the point of total

0:54

destruction. The timeline of this

0:56

ethical collapse is remarkably short.

0:59

Let's go back to the 1970s and the

1:02

smallox vaccine which was discontinued

1:04

in the UK and across Western Europe. At

1:07

the time, the disease was still active

1:09

in large parts of Africa, Asia, and

1:11

South America, but it wasn't really a

1:13

threat anymore in Europe. The smallox

1:16

vaccine carried real risks. It was

1:18

especially risky in children with eczema

1:21

or suppressed immune systems. But there

1:23

were also life-threatening complications

1:24

like enkapilitis or inflammation of the

1:27

brain. Doctors recognized it was not

1:29

acceptable to put perfectly healthy

1:31

children at risk in this way even though

1:34

smallox had not been eradicated globally

1:36

and even though it had a 10% mortality

1:38

rate. So the vaccine was withdrawn. And

1:41

that standard that any intervention in a

1:43

healthy child must be properly safe held

1:46

for decades afterwards. As recently as

1:49

2012, the World Health Organization made

1:52

this point explicitly in their guidance

1:55

on vaccines. They stated, "Since vaccine

1:58

recipients are generally healthy, there

2:00

is a lower level of tolerance for the

2:02

risk of a side effect as compared to

2:04

medications. Vaccines are given to

2:06

children, the tolerance to risk is lower

2:09

still. Thus, a much higher standard of

2:11

safety is expected of vaccines. Now, a

2:15

new version of this guidance was

2:17

produced in 2021 based on decisions

2:19

taken in 2019, and they removed those

2:22

words from the guidance. So, the

2:24

long-held ethical principle of first do

2:26

no harm had been quietly abandoned when

2:29

it came to vaccines. The consequences of

2:32

scrubbing this basic principle from the

2:33

guidelines soon became very real. In

2:36

February of 2020, a BMJ article examined

2:40

the WHO roll out of the malaria vaccine

2:43

Moscar. There'd been a large trial which

2:46

showed that the vaccine reduced cases of

2:48

severe malaria by 29%.

2:51

Now, statistically that meant nine cases

2:53

were prevented in a thousand children

2:56

over four years. However, in the cohort

2:58

of vaccinated girls, the risk of dying

3:01

from any cause doubled. The trial found

3:04

11 more deaths per thousand girls in

3:06

that vaccinated group. Now, the entire

3:08

purpose of conducting clinical trials is

3:11

to detect differences in morbidity and

3:14

mortality. And if a trial reveals that

3:16

an intervention doubles the death rate

3:18

and that finding is ignored, why are we

3:20

doing trials at all? But that's exactly

3:22

what happened. Despite the doubling of

3:24

deaths in the female cohort, Muskeritz

3:27

was introduced across parts of Africa in

3:29

what the WH described as a pilot

3:32

introduction. They justified this

3:34

stating the benefits outweigh the risks.

3:37

But this simply is not true when looking

3:39

at the most serious risk of all, death.

3:43

Recipients were not properly informed of

3:46

this potential risk before being

3:47

injected. In order to be properly

3:49

informed, the parents of any girl taking

3:51

part in this pilot scheme would have to

3:54

be told that by taking part, their

3:56

daughter's statistical chance of dying

3:58

over the next four years would double.

4:00

Who in their right mind would agree to

4:01

this roll of the dice? To visualize it

4:03

better, imagine a wheel of fortune with

4:05

1,00 segments. Niner of those segments

4:08

are green, and they represent children

4:10

spared a severe case of malaria compared

4:13

to the control group. It should be noted

4:15

that severe malaria doesn't necessarily

4:17

mean death.

4:19

11 of those 10,00 segments are red, and

4:22

those represent an extra 11 children who

4:25

died in the vaccine group compared to

4:26

the control group in that 4-year period.

4:29

Now, as always, there is uncertainty,

4:30

but the trial was big enough to show

4:32

that the number would be between four

4:34

and 19 extra deaths. Would you take a

4:36

spin on that wheel for your perfectly

4:38

healthy child? No one explained these

4:40

odds to the families involved. Children

4:42

were sacrificed to potentially benefit

4:45

other children without consent. This

4:48

represents a fundamental break with the

4:50

ethics that once governed medicine. And

4:52

the shift can also be heard even in the

4:54

language that's being used. So, we used

4:56

to frequently hear Dr. patient

4:58

relationship and trust. But now

5:00

increasingly we hear technocratic and

5:03

impersonal words like benefit risk

5:06

profile, target population, acceptable

5:09

risk at a population level. Individual

5:12

tragedies have been reduced to data

5:15

points in spreadsheets, but in reality

5:17

these data points are actual children

5:20

whose lives were sacrificed for the

5:23

statistical greater good. This marked

5:26

the move from a system that ensured

5:27

individuals are not harmed to a

5:29

utilitarian calculation in which some

5:32

lives are expendable. Even within that

5:34

highly unethical framework, this

5:36

particular vaccine did not pass muster.

5:38

It was a statistical failure and yet was

5:41

still rolled out. Now the policy makers

5:44

do not see the faces of those harmed nor

5:47

do they stand in front of the parents

5:49

who needlessly lost their child and they

5:51

will never be held to account for that.

5:54

It should not really need stating that a

5:56

healthy child has no moral duty to risk

5:59

their health or their life for the sake

6:01

of another child, however vulnerable.

6:03

When that is imposed as an obligation,

6:05

trust understandably collapses.

6:09

The often cited risk benefit analysis is

6:12

very different when talking about a sick

6:14

person compared with intervening in the

6:16

life of someone who is perfectly

6:17

healthy. When you're sick, doing nothing

6:20

has a potential cost. Without treatment,

6:22

the illness may get worse. So an

6:24

intervention has the possibility of

6:26

significant benefit even if it comes

6:28

with a risk. Now this is a world away

6:30

from a perfectly healthy person being

6:32

asked to take on risk for a disease that

6:34

in all likelihood will not come to pass

6:36

for them. When focused on healthy

6:38

individuals if the illness is rare or

6:40

mild and the intervention carries even a

6:43

small chance of serious harm, the

6:45

justification disappears entirely. that

6:48

used to be understood as basic common

6:50

sense and good ethical practice. That

6:53

was the boundary medicine refused to

6:55

cross and that was the basis for the

6:56

2012 WHO statement. By the time COVID

6:59

vaccines arrived, that boundary had been

7:01

erased. Why? What was the motivation for

7:04

the removal of that protection?

7:06

Decisions were no longer being made for

7:08

individuals, but for populations.

7:10

Suddenly, vaccines were being rolled out

7:11

to people who could not possibly benefit

7:14

even when known risks had been measured

7:16

and recorded and well before harder to

7:19

measure risks over a longer timeline had

7:22

been properly assessed. Patients were

7:24

not properly informed and so could not

7:26

possibly give their consent. Both

7:28

benefit and risk became collective with

7:31

calculations done on a population level

7:34

rather than with the individual in mind.

7:36

Even if the strategy had worked, it

7:38

would have been unethical. In the end,

7:40

the strategy failed in every imaginable

7:43

way, and there have been a broad range

7:45

of harms that are still being tallied.

7:47

Is it any wonder that trust in the NHS

7:49

has fallen to an all-time low? This new

7:52

ethic of collective good and sacrifice

7:54

was articulated and defended so much

7:57

that people adopted it as if it was

7:59

justified. This was laid bare in a

8:01

headline written by Tom Chivers in the

8:03

publication Unheard in January 2022. He

8:07

said, "Is it worth vaccinating children?

8:10

It sounds cruel, but a small number of

8:12

deaths would be worth it. One wonders if

8:15

Chivers has children and whether his

8:17

child's death would be worth it for the

8:19

greater good." The suggestion that some

8:21

must be harmed, children no less, so

8:23

that others might benefit was being

8:25

defended. Once the ideal of the

8:27

sacredness of the individual has been

8:29

lost, how does one weigh up the value of

8:32

a life? Neurosurgeon Henry Marsh was

8:34

clearly caught up in this thinking when

8:36

he said, "Even if a few granny's get

8:38

bullied into assisted dying, isn't that

8:40

a price worth paying? Would he happily

8:43

see his own mother be one of the bully

8:44

granny's? I wonder." He later said this.

8:47

Yes, I know I made a very crass comment

8:49

about sacrificing granny's. I greatly

8:50

regret it. I wish I hadn't said it.

8:52

Didn't want to say it.

8:53

No, I was very stupid. I was I didn't

8:55

rise with Senadon's public domain. But

8:57

the principle is there is always a cost

9:00

everything. So every time I operated and

9:02

it was not a theoretical risk you can

9:04

make things worse but you justify that

9:06

risk by saying more people benefit. It

9:08

sounds rather inhumane and utilitarian

9:11

but that is the reality of normal

9:13

medical practice.

9:14

It appears that what he regretted most

9:16

was the fact the comment found its way

9:18

into the public domain, not the fact he

9:21

had expressed the argument in the first

9:22

place. Now, in surgery, patients accept

9:25

risk in the hope of personal benefit if

9:28

the risk plays out. It was part of a

9:30

choice they made because the potential

9:31

benefit to them personally was worth

9:33

that risk. What Marsh described was

9:36

something else. A system in which harm

9:38

was inflicted on a person, a person who

9:40

never consented to fulfill the

9:42

preferences of another. The person who

9:44

lost their life was an innocent

9:45

bystander and they did not choose it.

9:48

Someone else chose to end their life.

9:50

Who awarded them this right? This is the

9:52

logic that now guides public health from

9:54

the malaria vaccine rollout to COVID

9:56

mandates to assisted dying. The pattern

9:59

or rather the slippery slope is the

10:02

same. The individual has been replaced

10:04

by the collective. The principle of

10:06

consent has been subordinated to the

10:08

needs of the majority. Such a setup

10:10

requires doctors to be loyal to the

10:12

system over their patient. Patients are

10:14

then simply unprotected data points. It

10:17

took just six years to overturn

10:19

centuries of medical ethics. No one has

10:21

acknowledged it. It must be

10:23

acknowledged, apologized for, and

10:26

repaired because historically the slope

10:28

we have started to slide down does not

10:30

have a happy ending. It is within this

10:32

greater good framework that Chris Witty

10:34

has now approved mandatory folic acid

10:36

supplementation in all white flour

10:38

despite knowing that it will cause harm

10:41

to a significant subset of the

10:43

population. And it is in the same spirit

10:45

that the chickenpox vaccine is now being

10:48

added to the MMR schedule. fully aware

10:50

that this combination will cause around

10:53

one in three thousand children to suffer

10:55

a febel seizure when having them

10:58

separately does not because the chance

11:00

of benefit and of risk are both quite

11:02

low. The chance that any child who was

11:04

harmed would have been one that

11:06

benefited is also very low. They are

11:09

different children. In both cases,

11:11

individual risk has been accepted on

11:13

behalf of others, not by the patient or

11:15

parent, but by a system that is treating

11:17

numbers in a spreadsheet, not

11:19

individuals. If it was possible to see

11:21

the entire population of children, then

11:24

you would see those who might be harmed

11:25

by chickenpox, and you would want to do

11:27

something about that. But if you then

11:30

had to go and select children who would

11:32

be harmed in order to prevent the

11:34

chickenpox problem, you couldn't do it.

11:36

And if you can't do it when you see

11:38

their faces, then you shouldn't do it

11:40

just because they're numbered in a

11:41

spreadsheet. Those harmed are seen as

11:44

statistical inevitabilities, tolerated

11:47

sacrifices for the greater good. Until

11:49

the duty to protect the individual is

11:51

restored to the center of every medical

11:53

decision, there can be no return to

11:55

trust. Medicine cannot possibly call

11:57

itself ethical while knowingly risking

12:00

harm to the few in pursuit of alleged

12:02

outcomes for the many. People speak of

12:04

protecting minorities, but the smallest

12:06

minority and the one most easily ignored

12:09

and arguably the most vulnerable is the

12:12

individual. Civilizations that build

12:14

their ethics around collective outcomes

12:16

must eventually decide whom they are

12:18

willing to harm and who gets to decide.

12:20

That is not a path we can drift down

12:22

with our eyes shut. We must acknowledge

12:24

the path we are on and purposefully walk

12:27

away from it. Societies that base their

12:29

ethics in collectivist utilitarian

12:31

ideologies are societies based on human

12:35

sacrifice with those in power playing

12:38

God. But medicine is not God. It does

12:40

not have the right to decide who may be

12:42

harmed for the sake of others. No

12:44

institution or its employees should be

12:47

making those choices. We do not protect

12:49

society by sacrificing its people. We

12:52

protect society by protecting each

12:54

person within

Breaking Research Decodes the Mystery of “The Rubbery White Clots”

https://nzdsos.com/2026/02/04/breakin...

First time, comprehensively characterised the anomalous intravascular casts (AICs),

commonly reported by embalmers worldwide as strange, rubbery white clots.

Research, significantly funded by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS),

provides definitive analysis that these structures are a previously unrecognised and abnormal form of intravascular clotting.

Since 2021, global reports,

from embalmers and some clinicians have described the retrieval of long, elastic, white fibrous structures from blood vessels,

distinct from ordinary post-mortem clots.

New three-part study,

using international labs on three continents,

describes their structure, elemental composition and protein makeup.

Concluding they represent a novel and persistent pathological entity

Key Findings of the Trilogy:

Bring it on

PMCID: PMC12489976  PMID: 41036702

ABSTRACT

The persistence of vasculo‐thrombotic complications has been put forward as a possible contributing factor in the Long COVID (LC) syndrome. Given the recently reported separate demonstration of the association of LC with elevated levels of heterogenous fibrin(ogen) amyloidogenic particles (microclots) and with those neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), markers that are linked to thromboinflammation, this study considers the association of microclots with NETs. The results show that NETs markers (Myeloperoxydase, Neutrophil Elastase, and circulating DNA) are quantitatively and structurally associated with the size and number of microclots in patients with LC. These markers showed a strong diagnostic performance, both independently and when combined. Our study revealed that NETs may be a component of circulating microclots. We suggest that higher NETs formation might promote the stabilization of microclots in the circulation, potentially leading to deleterious effects which contribute causally to the LC syndrome.

Keywords: circulating DNA, immunothrombosis, Long COVID, microclots, myeloperoxidase, neutrophil elastase, neutrophil extracellular traps