The well-dressed - and clearly wealthy - man called himself R.C. Christian. He admitted it was not his real name. He said he represented “a small group of loyal Americans” who had been planning the project for 20 years and wanted a monument that could serve as compass, calendar and clock after nuclear war or some other major collapse. The initials were widely read as an echo of Christian Rosenkreuz, the legendary fifteenth-century founder of the Rosicrucian tradition - a detail that later fed decades of speculation.

Banker Wyatt C. Martin handled the money. Martin was president of Granite City Bank, a courtly local institution man who became the project’s only named fiduciary. Christian revealed his true identity only after Martin signed a confidentiality agreement and promised to destroy the paperwork. Martin kept the name to his death in December 2021 and never publicly confirmed later identifications. The five-acre hilltop was bought from farmer and contractor Wayne Mullenix and his wife Mildred. Mullenix was a working cattleman whose pasture occupied the highest point in Elbert County; he sold the plot, kept grazing rights for two generations, poured foundation work, and still lives nearby. On 22 March 1980 the finished structure was unveiled: four 19-foot upright slabs around a central gnomon stone, capped by a lintel, more than 237,000 pounds of local granite. A hole in the capstone marked noon; slots tracked the solstices. It was a sundial and an astronomical calendar as well as a message board.

The message, carved in English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian, was ten “guides”:

- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

- Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.

- Unite humanity with a living new language.

- Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.

- Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

- Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

- Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

- Balance personal rights with social duties.

- Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.

- Be not a cancer on the earth. Leave room for nature.

A nearby tablet added: “Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason.” Sponsors: “A small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason.” A planned time capsule was never buried.

That is the official story. Almost everything else is open to speculation.

Christian later published a book ‘Common Sense Renewed’* under the same fake name and claimed sole authorship of the inscriptions. He said there was “no mysterious purpose,” only a wish to offer common-sense paths after disaster and to stay anonymous so the stones would be judged on their merits.

Investigators later pointed to Herbert H. Kersten, a Fort Dodge, Iowa physician and surgeon. Kersten (1920–2005) was a University of Iowa medical graduate, a U.S. Army captain in the Pacific in the Second World War, a co-founder of the family Kersten Clinic, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and a conservation-minded writer who published on overpopulation and Iowa’s future in the same period the monument was conceived. Addresses and phrasing in some of Christian’s correspondence aligned with Kersten’s life; the match, however, remains circumstantial. Martin never confirmed it. The paperwork was never found.

Many people were fascinated by the guidestones but there were no peer-reviewed studies of the stones. Amateur astronomers checked the alignments and found they worked as advertised. Local granite men measured them. Documentary crews poked at Martin’s files. That was about it. The real research was done by people who did not trust the official account.

Conspiracy researchers read the first two guides as a depopulation programme dressed as ecology. Five hundred million people is a fraction of the present world population. “Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity” sounded, to some, like eugenics. A world court, a living new language, and the dismissal of “petty laws and useless officials” looked like a blueprint for centralised global rule.

Mark Dice, author and YouTube commentator who first wrote about the site under another name in the mid-2000s, called the monument “Satanic” and demanded it be knocked down. Alex Jones, the Infowars host, treated the stones as an elite confession. Rosicrucian theorists noted that “R.C. Christian” echoes Christian Rosenkreuz. Others named the Illuminati, media owner Ted Turner, or a Luciferian lodge. Local pastors denounced sun-worship and the Antichrist at the unveiling. Kandiss Taylor, a far-right Republican who ran for Georgia governor in 2022 on a “Jesus, Guns, Babies” platform and took about three percent of the primary vote, also described the stones as satanic and promised an executive order to demolish them if elected.

But what was the actual purpose of these colossal stones? The simplest reason is the one Christian gave: a privately funded, slightly cranky Cold War warning about overpopulation, nuclear winter and how to cope after a world collapse. The astronomical features are real. The granite is local. The languages are the languages of large populations. None of that requires a secret world government. None of it rules one out, either. Anonymity plus population limits plus a new world order is a combination that invites suspicion, but suspicion is not the same as proof.

After decades of pontification, on 6 July 2022, just after 4 a.m., an explosive device destroyed the Swahili/Hindi slab and cracked the capstone. Security cameras caught the blast and a silver car leaving. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation judged the remainder unsafe and knocked down the rest of the stones the same day. No one has been charged with the bomb attack. The case is still open.

So who really demolished the Georgia Guidestones, and why? One rumour is that the same hidden hands that had them erected - often said to be a Rosicrucian circle or something adjacent - also ultimately took them down. This is unlikely. Why smash your own sermon? Then again, you never quite know with groups that thrive on secrecy, how their thought processes might work. They have a habit of pretending they have taken a blow while quietly growing in power. A ruined monument can be as useful as a standing one if it proves the public is “dangerous,” or if it moves the real work somewhere less visible.

But a few things point the other way: that this was a real act of grassroots defiance, not a stage-managed sacrifice. It was not grand. It happened very early in the morning. It was not huge news. It did the rounds on resistance social media at the time and then faded. It is not endlessly championed as a brilliant blow against the machine. Most such acts aren’t. David Chick**, a man from Northamptonshire later charged over two hammer attacks on the Eric Gill statue of Prospero and Ariel outside BBC Broadcasting House, produced a burst of attention that is now barely mentioned. Gill was a celebrated early-20th-century British sculptor whose posthumously published diaries revealed he had sexually abused his daughters and the family dog; the BBC alarmingly chose to restore the damaged work and put it behind protective glass. That is very telling. Institutions often protect the object and let the protests fade.

But the Georgia Guidestones have not been rebuilt. Nobody appears to have been prosecuted. If the stones really were an embarrassment to the people who talk about population, health and a new world order as if they were common sense, that silence is interesting. Why no prosecutions? Why the lack of explanation? Why the silence?

The official reason for finishing the demolition job was, of course, public safety. The unofficial reason for the bombing is the part no authority will settle. Was it a lone vandal who believed the stones were demonic? Could it have been a political statement after Taylor’s campaign made them a target? Was it an inside job disguised as vandalism? Or could they have been destroyed by people who had read the first two lines and decided a granite monument should not preach depopulation and eugenics in a public field?

The effect of the destruction is larger than a ruined tourist attraction. Elberton lost its most famous oddity. The rest of us lost something too. There’s now no standing evidence that the Georgia Guidestones ever existed. One day soon, their existence will probably be written off as folklore.

Once upon a time, you could stand in a Georgia field and read, in eight languages, a set of instructions that mixed conservation with population control and local rule with a new kind of world. You could decide for yourself whether that was wisdom or a threat, whether it was an expensive prank or a serious effort by those in the know to warn and educate. Now you cannot. Rubble does not invite the same conversation as 19-foot inscribed granite slabs.

If the stones were a private folly, blowing them up was an act of inexplicable vandalism. If they were a manifesto, destroying them could have been an attempt to silence that manifesto. Either way, their destruction would suggest the monument had power. That is worth noticing. People do not usually go out of their way to dynamite things they consider harmless. And if this was grassroots defiance - clumsy, early-morning, uncelebrated - it deserves more attention than it’s had, precisely because those in power did not restore the tableted sermon and did not produce a culprit.

So who decided the message should no longer stand in the open? Who benefits when a controversial text is reduced to photographs and memory? Why, with video of the blast and a getaway vehicle, is there still no suspect over four years on? If it was theatre, why leave the stage empty? If it was rebellion, why are so few willing to say so out loud? And if the Age of Reason needed granite to survive catastrophe, what does it say that the granite did not survive after one small explosion?

The field is now empty. The questions still being asked, however, are not. And whether we’ll ever unearth the truth is a mystery in itself.

Notes:

*Common Sense Renewed was a real book: a short 123-page volume published in 1986 under the name Robert Christian (the same R.C. Christian pseudonym used for the Guidestones). The title is an obvious nod to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. books.google.com

Publisher. It was printed by Graphic Publishing Company, Inc., Lake Mills, Iowa. The title page and copyright line are in the publisher’s name (copyright 1986, Graphic Publishing Company). Catalog records give ISBN 0-89279-078-4 and Library of Congress number 85-82573. Some listings call the 1986 printing the third edition, which implies earlier, even smaller runs. img1.wsimg.com

Lake Mills is in north-central Iowa, which is one reason researchers later tied the book to Herbert H. Kersten of Fort Dodge.

Did it sell many copies? No. It was never a commercial book in the usual sense.

What is documented:

• Catalog and collector descriptions call it a limited edition, often 100–200 copies. Some surviving copies are numbered (one scan is marked copy 96 of 100) and signed “Robert Christian.” archive.org

• Accounts of the Guidestones project say about 100 leather-bound signed copies were left in trust to be given to people who helped fund or support the stones — given, not sold. campbellmgold.co.uk

• A separate claim, from later researchers drawing on the book’s own front matter, is that the first two 1986 editions were mailed to several thousand officials and “shapers of public opinion,” including every member of the U.S. Congress. That would be a targeted giveaway, not bookstore sales. A third edition is said to have followed around 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall. campbellmgold.co.uk

There is no public sales figure because it was not sold like a trade paperback. Used copies later became scarce and expensive; libraries that hold one treat it as a rarity. Digitized scans now circulate on the Internet Archive, which is how most people read it. archive.org

So: it was a privately printed manifesto-memoir, not a bestseller. The author used print the same way he used granite — to put a message in a few durable places, not to win a mass market.

**David Chick (also known as Dave Chick), a fathers’ rights campaigner from Bozeat, Northamptonshire, was arrested twice over attacks on Eric Gill’s Prospero and Ariel statue at BBC Broadcasting House.

First arrest — 12 January 2022

Police were called about 4.15pm after a man damaged the statue with a hammer. He came down with help from the London Fire Brigade around 8.45pm, was checked by ambulance staff, and arrested on suspicion of criminal damage. He was taken into custody that night. dailymail.co.uk

For a long time that matter sat as released under investigation. Chick later said he had not been charged over the 2022 attack even though he claimed more than £5,000 of damage. By March 2025 prosecutors had him facing trial on that 2022 incident as well. thetimes.com

Second arrest — 20 May 2023

A man in a Spider-Man mask climbed scaffolding and attacked the same statue with a hammer and chisel. Police were called about 4.15am. He was arrested shortly after 6pm on suspicion of criminal damage and going equipped. Court papers later put the May 2023 damage at £153,014.18. independent.co.uk

What he was charged with

Criminal damage to property valued over £5,000 (the statutory threshold that takes the case to Crown Court), on two occasions: 12 January 2022 and 20 May 2023. The two cases were joined at Southwark Crown Court. On 17 March 2025 he pleaded not guilty. The judge released him on conditional bail and barred him from going within 100 metres of the statue. A trial was listed for May 2026. Public reporting through early 2025 does not show a conviction on the statue charges. bbc.co.uk

Was he jailed for the statue attacks?

Not on those charges, as of the last detailed court reports. After each statue arrest he was held in custody for processing, then released. In March 2025 he walked out of Southwark on bail.

He was jailed for a different protest. On 9 September 2023 he climbed a crane in Milton Keynes dressed as Spider-Man and carrying a fake firearm. In March 2024 a jury at Aylesbury Crown Court convicted him of public nuisance and possessing an imitation firearm in a public place. He was sentenced to one year in prison. That sentence is separate from the BBC statue case. miltonkeynes.co.uk

Earlier stunts (Tower Bridge crane, 2003; London Eye, 2005) ended in acquittals for public nuisance.

He went to prison — but for the Milton Keynes crane stunt, not for the BBC statue.

In March 2024 a jury at Aylesbury Crown Court convicted him of public nuisance and possessing an imitation firearm in a public place after he climbed a crane in Milton Keynes on 9 September 2023, dressed as Spider-Man and carrying a fake gun. He was sentenced to one year in prison. Local reporting said he was beginning that sentence the week of 12 March 2024. miltonkeynes.co.uk

That is the only completed prison sentence on the public record.

He has not been sentenced to prison for the Gill statue attacks. After the January 2022 and May 2023 arrests he was held briefly in custody, then released. In March 2025 he was still on conditional bail at Southwark Crown Court, having pleaded not guilty to two counts of criminal damage. A trial was listed for May 2026; there is no widely reported conviction or prison term from that case. bbc.com

He was also remanded in custody after coming down from the Tower Bridge crane in 2003, then acquitted of public nuisance in 2004. The London Eye climb in 2005 also ended in acquittal.

So: one year imposed in 2024 for the crane and imitation firearm. Not a prison sentence (yet, as of last detailed reports) for smashing the statue.

On New Year’s Day 2026, my cousin’s 25-year-old son went to bed and never woke up. (In a further tragedy, my cousin - the young man’s father - died suddenly eight months later, I believe of literal heartbreak.)

Many news stories of death during sleep abound. These include reports on the tragic deaths of Amy Forde-Jury, 16, from Dagenham (November 2021; inquest reported June 2022), who was found unresponsive in her bedroom. An inquest recorded sudden adult death; a pathologist said her heart “simply stopped beating” in her sleep, possibly from an arrhythmia, with no clear structural cause; and John Nesbitt, 18, from Warrington (death reported May 2022), who in his sleep from arrhythmia linked to myocarditis (heart inflammation), which can follow a mild infection such as a cold and often shows no earlier symptoms. He had recently finished A-levels and was due to study engineering. More recently, Jono Stead, 27, Elizabeth Medling 24, Matthew Dunning, 20 and Isabel Sava, 19, have all been reported as dying in their sleep. These are just a handful of cases: there are plenty more. 


Families describe no warning and death usually discovered in the morning. To be so young and to die that way feels wrong. It’s hard to accept in older people too but for someone to pass peacefully in their sleep in their eighties or nineties is often seen as a blessing and not an aberration.

It would appear in recent years that the number of young people dying whilst sleeping has risen. But has it? Many of us are constantly on the lookout for these deaths, especially those looking to make a connection between sudden death in the young and the introduction in late 2020 of the mRNA Covid ‘vaccines’. But before we look into the cause - or causes - we first must investigate whether it’s actually true that the number of these shocking demises has risen.

After some investigation, I discover that the number has indeed risen. In the United States, mortality among adults aged 25 to 44 was about 70% higher in 2023 than it would have been had the downward trend of the early 2000s continued, according to an analysis in JAMA Network Open of more than three million deaths from 1999 to 2023. Excess mortality in that age group was already elevated before ‘Covid’ was announced COVID, then accelerated in 2020 and 2021. By 2023 it had fallen from the alleged ‘pandemic peak’ but remained far above the old baseline. Drug poisoning apparently accounted for roughly a third of the excess. Did this include poisoning by allopathic drugs and other medical interventions and treatments? Not surprisingly, I can’t find any information on that. Transport deaths, alcohol, homicide and a residual category of so-called ‘natural causes’ made up most of the rest. Cardiometabolic disease - high blood pressure, metabolic disorders, circulatory disease - contributed about 9%.

British and European life expectancy stalled or reversed for working-age adults over the same period, with the sharpest damage in poorer areas. The Office for National Statistics and European registries documented excess deaths in younger adults during and after the ‘pandemic’ years, though the mix of causes differs by country. What the headlines rarely say is how many of these poor souls were actually found in bed.

“Died in their sleep” is clearly a circumstance, not a diagnosis. Opioid and mixed-drug overdoses - accidental or deliberate - often occur at night. The person is alone, they go to bed, breathing slows while they’re sleeping until respiration stops completely, and they are then usually discovered in the morning. In US data, overdose became the leading cause of death for adults 25 to 44 around the middle of the last decade and rose several-fold after the use of fentanyl spread. Alcohol-related deaths climbed too. Suicide rates in the same age band rose by more than 40% between 2000 and the early 2020s. None of that meant a new mystery illness. It requires drugs that stop breathing, despair, and hours in which no one is there to intervene.

Cardiac arrest tells a narrower story. CDC-based analyses of Americans aged 15 to 44 found cardiac-arrest mortality roughly flat from 1999 to 2018, then a sharp rise from 2018 to 2021, followed by a decline through to 2024. In younger adults, the usual causes were coronary disease where it exists, cardiomyopathy, inherited disorders, and myocarditis. A New England Journal of Medicine study showed that obstructive sleep apnoea shifts sudden cardiac death into the night: 46% of such deaths in people with apnoea occurred between midnight and 6 a.m., against about 16% in the general population. Severe, untreated apnoea is common, underdiagnosed, and tightly linked to obesity. Hypertensive heart-disease death rates in young US adults rose several-fold between 1999 and 2024. Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is another nocturnal killer, concentrated in people whose seizures are poorly controlled.

Vaccination - and the mRNA Covid jabs - is the cause many people now want tested. The evidence splits by study type.

Autopsy series have attributed a number of unexpected deaths to myocarditis after the mRNA injections. A Heidelberg series in Clinical Research in Cardiology (Schwab et al., 2022) examined 25 people who died unexpectedly within 20 days of receiving a Covid shot. In four who had received an mRNA vaccine, pathologists found acute epi-myocarditis without another disease that explained the death, and concluded it was the likely cause of arrhythmogenic cardiac failure. A Korean case report (Choi et al., Journal of Korean Medical Science, 2021) described a 22-year-old man who developed chest pain five days after a first Pfizer dose and died hours later; the autopsy showed atrial myocarditis, and Korean authorities called the link “possibly related.” A later review of published autopsy reports assembled 28 cases the authors judged likely causal, with a mean age of about 44 and a median of three days from the last dose to death. These papers do not estimate a rate per million doses, and they do not show that nocturnal deaths under 50 rose because of the mRNA injections. However, mRNA vaccines are, separately, an established ‘rare’ cause of myocarditis, mostly in young men after a second dose. Many fatal cases have been recorded although mainstream ‘science’ and mainstream media continues to tell us these fatalities are extremely uncommon.

Studies built to measure risk have not found an excess of sudden death. An Ontario case-control study in PLOS Medicine (2026), covering about 6.4 million people aged 12 to 50 without known cardiovascular disease, diabetes or cancer, found vaccination associated with lower odds of sudden death (adjusted odds ratio 0.57), including within six weeks of a dose and after opioid deaths were excluded. The BMJ reported that result as evidence the injections were not linked to sudden death in healthy younger adults. An Oregon review of death certificates for residents aged 16 to 30, published in MMWR in 2024, found three cardiac or undetermined deaths within 100 days of an mRNA dose among those in whom a cardiac cause could not be excluded. Two were attributed to chronic illness. No certificate named the ‘vaccine’ as the cause of death. No surprises there.

A National Academies review judged the evidence inadequate to accept or reject a causal link between the mRNA vaccines and sudden death as a category. So it was basically saying they didn’t know. Or perhaps they were covering themselves by choosing to sit firmly on the fence.

That leaves a real but narrow finding - fatal myocarditis, documented at autopsy in individual cases - beside a larger rise in deaths under 50 driven by overdose, alcohol, suicide, road deaths, violence and previous cardiometabolic disease. Sudden death in sleep will keep generating reports, because it is shocking, especially in the young. The useful response is autopsy, toxicology and proper certification, and prevention aimed at the causes the counts already show.

We’ve recently been inundated with reports of SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome). It’s been touted as the adult version of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) and framed as a new explanation for these unexpected and seemingly inexplicable deaths of adults of all ages. A large section of the public is understandably suspicious of such a syndrome and believe there’s always a cause, that people - especially young people - don’t simply drop dead or die in their sleep - for no reason. Like many conditions in the past, the causes are discovered a long time after syndromes are introduced. Will SADS be renamed once the true cause is found one day in the future? In the same way an increasing number of researchers are calling SIDS ‘vaccine death, claiming the shots babies are given actually caused their deaths (and not a mysterious syndrome), will it come out some day soon that the rise in the number of young adults dying in their sleep is also due to certain unnecessary injections. I think so. And so do many others. Watch this space.

RIP to my cousin Brian and his son Ciaran.

Links to news reports referenced:

Amy Forde-Jury, 16, Dagenham (died November 2021; inquest reported June 2022) — MyLondon
https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/healthy-girl-16-died-out-2434949

John Nesbitt, 18, Warrington (reported May 2022) — Cheshire Live
https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/news/chester-cheshire-news/lovely-happy-young-lad-cheshire-24029883

Jono Stead, 27, Driffield (December 2022; reported November 2023) — The Sun
https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/24841911/hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy-fit-healthy-man-dies-nap/
Yorkshire Live coverage: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/local-news/fit-healthy-yorkshire-man-27-2816846

Elizabeth Medling, 24, Leigh (June 2025; inquest reported January 2026) — Wigan Today
https://www.wigantoday.net/news/inquests/the-tragic-death-of-a-leigh-woman-24-who-went-to-bed-and-never-got-up-5466634

Matthew Dunning, 20 (September 2025; family interview May 2026) — BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g80l73e8no

Isabelle Sava, 19 (August 2026) — Metro
https://metro.co.uk/2026/08/24/black-belt-law-student-19-dies-heart-stopped-suddenly-slept-29447744/

Most of us go through life believing the physical machinations of the human body are pretty much settled, neatly mapped by textbooks and doctors who have it all worked out. Then you stumble across something as basic as the calf muscles being called the body’s “second heart,” and you start to wonder.

Vascular specialists and physiologists have used the term for decades because the soleus and gastrocnemius muscles actively propel blood upwards, back toward the chest. Every step, every heel raise, every ankle flex squeezes the deep veins in the lower leg, pushing deoxygenated blood up while one-way valves stop it sliding back down. Without this assistance, blood would pool in the legs. The heart in your chest, powerful as it is, cannot do the job alone.

So does this mean if you have weak calves you’re more at risk of heart problems? Well, take a look at this: a 2020 study from the Mayo Clinic Gonda Vascular Laboratory tracked thousands of patients and found that those with impaired calf muscle pump function had markedly higher mortality. At ten years, the difference was stark: roughly 6% for those with normal function versus 17.5% for those with impaired function. A larger 2024 follow-up examining nearly 6,000 people confirmed that lower calf ejection fraction predicted higher all-cause death rates even after adjusting for other factors. These are not fringe findings. They appear in Vascular Medicine and Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Similar observations turn up in European vascular literature, including reviews that highlight the calf pump’s outsized role in venous return and chronic venous disease. Yet ask a GP or school biology teacher about your “second heart” and you will likely get a blank look.

This is the pattern. Basic physiology that affects daily health is treated as specialist trivia rather than public knowledge. We are told to walk more for our hearts, but no one tells us why that’s a good thing. And very few of us ask either.

The fact of the matter is that prolonged sitting switches off the mechanism, blood stagnates, swelling appears and clot risk rises. None of this requires a degree to grasp, yet it remains largely unmentioned outside vascular clinics. The same institutions that issue endless guidelines on diet and statins stay quiet on something as elementary as using your calves.

The silence becomes more interesting once you notice how little consensus exists even about the heart itself. For generations we have been taught that it is simply a mechanical pump, squeezing blood through a system of pipes. Plenty of researchers and observers disagree. The heart generates the body’s strongest electromagnetic field. Its electrical activity is measurable at a distance. Some physicists and clinicians argue that vortex flow, pressure gradients and electrical forces matter as much as, or more than, pure muscular contraction. The idea that the heart is primarily an electrical or energetic organ rather than a simple pump circulates among those who study biophotons, structured water and coherent fields – ideas long dismissed by mainstream cardiology yet never fully refuted. If the central organ is still debated in its fundamental action, what else have we been handed as settled fact?

The calf ‘heart’ sits in the middle of this uncertainty. It is mechanical and local, yet its effectiveness depends on the whole circulatory picture, including whatever forces help or hinder return to the chest. When Mayo researchers note that poor calf function independently predicts death, they are describing a measurable contribution. They are not claiming to have solved how blood actually moves through living tissue under all conditions. The body keeps revealing layers. Soleal venous sinuses, the specific anatomy that makes the soleus especially efficient at this task, were mapped in detail only relatively recently. Older anatomy texts barely mentioned them. How many other “secondary” systems operate beneath our awareness?

Mainstream coverage treats the “second heart” label as a quirky factoid for fitness pages. It rarely asks why something so consequential stayed obscure. Medical training prioritises acute interventions and pharmaceuticals. Prevention that requires only movement fits poorly with that model. There is little profit in telling people their own legs already contain back-up that reduces the load on the heart.

None of this means the calf muscles replace the heart or that walking cures every vascular problem. But it does mean the body contains more built-in redundancy and intelligence than many simplified diagrams suggest. The same question applies elsewhere: how many other bodily systems, electrical fields or self-regulating mechanisms are we still treating as minor footnotes? Experts measure outcomes and publish papers, yet the full picture of how blood moves, how the heart coordinates with the periphery, and how inactivity compounds risk remains incomplete. That gap is not a failure of individual doctors. It is what happens when complex living systems are reduced to pump-and-pipe models that ignore half the evidence.

The practical point is straightforward. Move your ankles. Stand on your toes. Walk. These actions activate a system that has been quietly supporting circulation for as long as humans have stood upright. The fact that most people only hear about it by accident says more about what gets emphasised in medicine and media than about any shortage of data.

The studies exist. The anatomy is known. What remains missing is the habit of telling the public that their own body already contains tools the experts are still busy measuring.

Key studies
Mayo Clinic 2020: Calf muscle pump function as a predictor of all-cause mortality
Mayo Clinic 2024: Calf rEF: Impact of Calf Muscle Pump Dysfunction…

Did you know that most countries around the world don’t add fluoride to their drinking water?

Here in England, we’re among the minority that do. Alongside the United States, Australia and Ireland, we’ve embraced a practice that most of the world has either rejected, abandoned or never considered necessary.

So why are we doing it? If fluoridation is such a wonderful public health measure, why hasn’t the rest of the world followed suit? And if it’s as safe and beneficial as we’re repeatedly assured, why is it still controversial?

Are we the lucky ones? Or are we, as some critics suspect, unwitting participants in a mass public health experiment?

The fluoride divide

Roughly 400 million people worldwide - around 5% of the global population - receive artificially fluoridated drinking water.

Most of continental Europe manages without it. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Norway are among the many countries that don’t routinely add fluoride to public water supplies. Some, including Germany, Finland and the Netherlands, previously experimented with fluoridation before discontinuing it. Others never introduced it. Their reasons vary, from practical difficulties to the availability of alternative dental treatments and concerns about individual choice.

Interestingly, many have experienced substantial improvements in dental health without fluoridating their water.

Closer to home, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don’t currently operate artificial water fluoridation schemes. England does, although mainly in parts of the Midlands and North East.

Only around one in ten people in the UK receives artificially fluoridated water. Yet the Westminster Government has pursued plans to expand fluoridation in England, supposedly to tackle childhood tooth decay. Which raises an obvious question: if it’s so important, why are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish children managing without it? Are their governments neglecting them? Or have they simply made different decisions?

What about the rest of the world?

Japan doesn’t routinely fluoridate its water, yet childhood tooth decay has declined considerably over recent decades.

India doesn’t generally add fluoride either. In some regions, naturally occurring concentrations are so high that they cause dental and skeletal fluorosis, making removal rather than addition the priority.

Thailand has used fluoridated milk programmes for schoolchildren, while Mexico and Colombia have relied largely on fluoridated salt.

Fluoride toothpaste is widely available almost everywhere.

Clearly, adding fluoride to drinking water isn’t the only way to prevent tooth decay. Nor is it universally regarded as necessary.

So why put it in everyone’s tap water?

What happened to informed consent?

When fluoride is added to public water supplies, everyone receives it, regardless of age, health or personal preference. Babies, pregnant women, elderly people and those with kidney problems are all potentially exposed. While the concentration can be controlled, the amount each person consumes depends on how much water they drink and their exposure from other sources.

There’s no straightforward way to opt out, short of buying bottled water or installing a suitable filtration system.

We’re repeatedly told that informed consent is fundamental to modern medicine. Yet when it comes to fluoridated water, the decision is effectively made for us.

Supporters argue that fluoridation is a public health measure rather than an individual medical treatment. Critics see that distinction as convenient.

Whatever your position, shouldn’t we have a say in what goes into something as essential as our drinking water?

Does it actually work?

Fluoridation began in America in 1945, when Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to deliberately add fluoride to its public water supply. Early studies reported dramatic reductions in childhood tooth decay, sometimes exceeding 50%. But that was before fluoride toothpaste became commonplace and when dental health was generally much worse.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has since cited reductions of around 25% in cavities among children and adults in fluoridated communities. However, a major Cochrane review published in 2024 found that the benefits of water fluoridation appear considerably smaller today.

It suggested a modest reduction in decay in children’s baby teeth, but the certainty of the evidence was low. Evidence relating to permanent teeth and dental inequalities was also limited or uncertain.

In other words, even if fluoridation once offered substantial benefits, that doesn’t necessarily mean those benefits remain as significant today.

And if the gains are relatively small, is adding fluoride to an entire population’s drinking water still justified?

But is it safe?

Public health authorities maintain that fluoridation at recommended concentrations is safe. In England, schemes generally aim for approximately 1 milligram per litre, compared with 0.7 milligrams in the United States.

Excessive fluoride exposure can cause dental fluorosis, which affects tooth enamel, and at substantially higher levels, skeletal fluorosis. More recently, concerns have emerged about possible effects on children’s neurological development.

A 2024 report from the US National Toxicology Program found a consistent association between higher fluoride exposure - particularly above 1.5 milligrams per litre - and lower IQ in children.

That doesn’t establish that the lower concentrations used in fluoridation schemes have the same effects. But it raises questions about long-term exposure, particularly during childhood. Surely those questions deserve proper investigation rather than dismissal.

Are we part of an experiment?

It’s a provocative suggestion, but history shows that governments haven’t always been honest about medical experimentation.

The notorious Tuskegee syphilis study in America involved withholding treatment from participants without properly informing them.

The CIA’s MKUltra programme involved secret experiments using drugs and psychological manipulation. Other documented abuses included radiation experiments on unwitting subjects.

These weren’t conspiracy theories. They happened.

Of course, that doesn’t prove fluoridation is a secret experiment. The original programmes were publicly announced, research has been published and the policy has been debated for decades. There’s no credible evidence that modern fluoridation schemes are secretly designed to harm the population.

Nevertheless, past abuses demonstrate why government assurances shouldn’t automatically be accepted without scrutiny. The original fluoridation trials were experiments in the scientific sense. The question today is whether the policy that emerged from them remains justified.

What about the NHS?

There’s another distinctly British issue.

Millions of people struggle to access NHS dentistry, with some families unable to obtain appointments without paying privately or travelling considerable distances. The Government argues that fluoridation can reduce decay and prevent children requiring hospital treatment for extractions. But wouldn’t it make more sense to improve access to dentists, tackle excessive sugar consumption and provide targeted preventive care?

Fluoridation doesn’t solve poverty, poor diets or the shortage of NHS dental appointments. If its additional benefits are smaller than previously believed, shouldn’t we be asking whether public money could be better spent elsewhere?

Who decides?

Perhaps the biggest question isn’t fluoride itself but the principle behind adding it.

Drinking water is essential to life. We can’t simply choose not to drink it.

Treating water to remove dangerous contamination is one thing. Adding a substance specifically to influence the health of the people consuming it is another.

Supporters argue that fluoridation is an inexpensive, effective way to protect dental health, particularly among disadvantaged communities. Critics argue that the potential benefits don’t justify removing individual choice. Both positions deserve examination.

Calling fluoridation deliberate poisoning goes beyond what the available evidence establishes. Equally, decades of use don’t make a policy immune from criticism.

Most countries have chosen not to fluoridate their water. Many have achieved good dental outcomes through other means. And, within Britain itself, three of the four nations currently manage without artificial fluoridation.

So perhaps the question isn’t why the rest of the world has failed to follow England’s example. Perhaps it’s why England remains so determined to pursue a policy that most of the world has never adopted.

So poison on tap or public health policy past its sell-by date? Either way, when something is being added to the water we drink every day, surely we have the right to ask why. And to expect a convincing answer.

Speculation - over how thin she was, how strange her make up was and her peculiar eye and body movements - were rife. Some people went as far to say the woman in the video wasn’t her, that she’d been replaced, that the person in the video was a man or even a robot! That speculation  continues. Susan Dell herself has yet to comment.

This morning, I glimpsed a Facebook post appeared which went into detail about the Dells’ support of IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers and related Israeli causes, primarily through a 2014 donation and grants from the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation.

I decided to have a quick look into it…

According to Grok, in

November 2014, Michael and Susan Dell pledged $1.8 million at the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces (FIDF) Western Region Gala in Beverly Hills. The funds were designated for educational scholarship programs for IDF soldiers and veterans. This was part of a record-raising event (around $33-34 million total) that also drew major donors such as Larry Ellison and Sheldon and Miriam Adelson.

Contemporary reporting (Bloomberg, Times of Israel, Hollywood Reporter, and others) confirms the joint pledge by Michael and Susan Dell. Michael Dell was quoted at related coverage emphasising support for the soldiers’ higher education.

FIDF is a U.S.-based 501(c)(3) that raises funds for the health, well-being, education, and related support of active-duty IDF soldiers, veterans, and bereaved families; it coordinates with Israeli military and defense authorities for these non-combat welfare programs.

Michael & Susan Dell Foundation Activities

The couple co-founded the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation in 1999. It has an Israel-focused program emphasising education, STEM pathways, career development, and national service opportunities (which in Israel can involve military or alternative service).

Specific 2024 grants linked to IDF-related or pro-Israel support include:

- $1 million to American Friends of Ogen (supporting the Israeli social lender Ogen), earmarked for interest-free loans to IDF reservists called to duty.

- Other grants for raising awareness of the October 7, 2023 attacks, combating antisemitism, Jewish campus support, and related initiatives.

The foundation has also described post-October 7 Israel relief efforts. Israeli business figures have described Michael and Susan Dell as “true friends of Israel” and “Zionists” in the context of tech investment partnerships.

These are personal/philanthropic actions involving Susan Dell jointly with her husband. Separately, Dell Technologies (the company) has longstanding commercial contracts supplying servers, storage, and related technology to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and military (including multi-hundred-million-dollar deals funded in part by U.S. aid), R&D presence in Israel, and other business ties. Those corporate relationships are distinct from the foundation and the 2014 FIDF gift.

They’re the facts. I just thought you’d like to know.

Some people say that, in life, you get the face you deserve. It would seem sometimes it’s the case. Make of that what you will.

The “Living Doll” posts that prompted the thread treat the 1959 hit as something much darker than a possessive pop song. One widely shared post asked what the record by “Paedophile Cliff Richard” was about, and called the people involved sick and twisted. Richard was investigated - not over the song lyrics but in connection with paedophile activity - and never charged; he has described the coverage of unproven claims as disastrous. The lyrics in the song compares a girlfriend to a doll that cries, talks, sleeps and walks, and says he wants to keep her in a trunk so no “big hunk” might steal her away. On the same thread, there’s a mention of the film Boxing Helena which featured a young woman who was captured by a maniac, who amputated her limbs and kept her in a box. The reference to putting a lover in a trunk had triggered the memory of the movie.

Defenders of the songs say it’s just more conspiracy theory and that the songs are just songs with no nefarious undertones. But in some cases it’s very hard to deny that the lyrics are a little on the inappropriate side.

The follow-up post singled out “Tonight’s the Night (Gonna Be Alright),” a UK and US number one in 1976-77, as worse. It highlighted “Don’t say a word, my virgin child” and “Spread your wings and let me come inside,” and asked what Stewart was thinking. Replies did not settle it. One user answered by pasting Bruce Springsteen’s “I’m on Fire”: “Hey, little girl, is your daddy home? / Did he go and leave you all alone? / I got a bad desire.” Another offered Gary Puckett’s “Young Girl” and added that at least slight restraint was shown. A third said children’s television of the same era was full of sexual innuendo and called that horrific. The thread treats “child,” “little girl” and a named young girl (My Sharona) as one subject. I put it to Grok. Unsurprisingly, Grok defended the songs and the men who sang them. It says “They are not one subject. In Stewart’s song “child” is the old idiom for an innocent; no age is stated, and a later chorus says “woman.” Stewart was in his early thirties when the song charted. Questioning why a seduction of someone inexperienced enough to be called a child was sold as romance is fair. Calling the record the most paedophilic lyric of all time, as that post does, goes beyond what the words allege.”

It continues: “Springsteen’s line is the same kind of problem. “Little girl” and “daddy” are stock address in blues and rock, where “daddy” is the man of the house, and the rest of “I’m on Fire” is adult frustration. Listeners on the thread hear Springsteen singing to a child. The song never says this is the case. Puckett’s record is different again: an adult voice telling a girl she is “much too young” and that his love is “way out of line,” while admitting he may not stop. It was a US number two and a UK number one in 1968. The reply that heard restraint there is hearing the warning. The warning sits inside a hit about not being sure he will heed it. “My Sharona,” a US number one in 1979, is clearer about age and still not a confession. Doug Fieger wrote it about Sharona Alperin, who has said she was 16 or 17 and he was about nine years older. The hook boasts of “the touch of the younger kind.” Age of consent in California was 18, so the real-life gap sat in a legal grey zone depending on exact dates. Alperin has not described the song as abuse. The open question, which the thread’s tone assumes is already answered, is why a mainstream hit could treat “younger” as a selling point.”

But what about the records that leave less room? Kiss’s “Christine Sixteen” (1977, US number 25) has Gene Simmons describing a 16-year-old he saw leaving school. Benny Mardones’s “Into the Night” (1980, US number 11) opens with “She’s just sixteen years old, leave her alone, they say,” then invites her away; he later said the line was a rebuke, which did not stop listeners hearing a pursuit. The Rolling Stones’ “Stray Cat Blues” addresses a girl the singer can see is 15 and says he does not want her ID. Chuck Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” and Ringo Starr’s chart-topping “You’re Sixteen” put the age in the title. The Police’s “Don’t Stand So Close to Me,” which the thread also flags, is a teacher–schoolgirl story that nods to Lolita. Those are the songs that state the premise. Is this why a loose interpretation of “Living Doll” or “I’m on Fire” feels inappropriate to people already looking for it? Maybe.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, record buyers were heavily teenage, sixteen was a stock age for first romance, and the age of consent was 16 in England and Wales and uneven across American states. Some stations flinched, then played the hits anyway. They didn’t seem too worried about spinning discs that featured adult narrators romancing very young partners. It is not of course incontrovertible proof that every “child” or “little girl” in a chart song is a child, which is the stance the louder replies on the thread take.

Are these just metaphors that have aged badly or actually songs about romancing, lusting  after and having sex with minors? Is the discomfort we feel when hearing these songs because times have changed or does it go deeper? Have a listen to the songs mentioned and see what your gut says.

Songs that name a teenager, or call a partner “child,” have been normal chart fare for decades. Whether that was casual slang, a product of who bought records, or something darker is worth asking without forcing every lyric into the same charge.

I started from a post about Cliff Richard’s 1959 hit “Living Doll.” The song compares a girlfriend to a doll that cries, talks, sleeps and walks. It is possessive and a bit plastic, which is why it still gets quoted in arguments about how women were written in early pop. It does not describe sex, and it does not give the “doll” an age. Reading it as a song about a child is a stretch the words do not support.

That sent me to Rod Stewart’s “Tonight’s the Night (Gonna Be Alright),” a UK and US number one in 1976–77. The narrator is coaxing a nervous virgin: “Don’t say a word, my virgin child,” “Let me come inside you.” “Child” here is the old idiom for an innocent, not a stated age. Stewart was in his early thirties; the song never says the other person is under the age of consent. It is still fair to ask why a seduction of someone inexperienced enough to be called a child was sold as romance, and why the French-language whispering on the record made the pressure feel more intimate than tender. Questioning the lyric is not the same as proving a crime the song does not allege.

“My Sharona” by the Knack, a US number one in 1979, is clearer about age and still not a confession. Doug Fieger wrote it about Sharona Alperin, who has said she was 16 or 17 and he was about nine years older. The hook line is “I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind.” Age of consent in California was 18, so the real-life gap sat in a legal grey zone depending on exact dates; the record itself boasts about youth as the attraction. Alperin has spoken about the song without describing it as abuse. The honest question is why a mainstream hit could treat “younger” as a selling point and meet almost no radio resistance.

Other records leave less room for ambiguity. Gary Puckett and the Union Gap’s “Young Girl” (1968, US number two, UK number one) is an adult voice telling a girl she is “much too young” and that his feelings are “way out of line,” while also admitting he may not stop. Kiss’s “Christine Sixteen” (1977, US number 25) has Gene Simmons describing a 16-year-old he saw leaving school and saying he does not usually talk this way “to girls your age.” Benny Mardones’s “Into the Night” (1980, US number 11) opens with “She’s just sixteen years old, leave her alone, they say,” then invites her away; Mardones later said the line was a rebuke to a collaborator, which did not stop stations worrying or listeners hearing a pursuit. The Rolling Stones’ album track “Stray Cat Blues” (1968) addresses a girl the singer can see is 15 and says he does not want her ID. Chuck Berry’s “Sweet Little Sixteen” and Ringo Starr’s chart-topping “You’re Sixteen” name the age in the title and treat it as the point of the song.

Bruce Springsteen does not belong in that list on the evidence of his hits. No Springsteen single is a chart song about an adult having sex with an underage partner. Putting one there because a mood or a nickname feels young is how these arguments lose the plot.

From the 1950s to the 1980s the record-buying public was heavily teenage, and songwriters wrote to that audience. Sixteen was also a common fictional age for first romance in films and pulp fiction, and the age of consent was not uniform: it was 16 in England and Wales for much of this period, and varied by US state. Radio gatekeepers sometimes flinched—“Young Girl” and “Christine Sixteen” both met resistance—then played the records anyway once they sold. That is not proof of a coordinated tolerance for child abuse. It is evidence that explicit age gaps, boastful “jailbait” lines and coy use of “child” could still reach number one if the tune was strong enough.

What the charts do show is a long tolerance for adult narrators dwelling on very young partners, sometimes by name and number. The useful distinction is between a metaphor that has aged badly, a song that states an age and shrugs, and a criminal allegation the lyric never makes.

My X post:

https://x.com/jacquideevoy1/status/2105967578367558131?s=46

Sarah Coupe was 36 when, on 22 September 2025 in Blacburn A & E, her life was abruptly ended. Her mother - Karen Lord - had saved her daughter’s life many times but this time it was impossible. Years of catastrophic medical failure had become normal for the family.

What follows is not a tidy hospital case study. It is the story of a young woman who spent most of her adult life attached to machines, and of a parent who learned, too late, that the public services most people assume will protect them can instead look the other way in times of need.

“Sarah was born eight weeks early and, despite having just one kidney and a hole in her heart, she was incredible in every way,” says mum Karen. “As she grew older, I noticed she had a great memory and always remembered the names of everyone she met. As a child and an adult, she was patient and kind, almost always smiling. She never shouted or complained, never blamed anyone for any of the terrible things they did to her. She also had a great sense of humour.”

For 13 years Sarah had lived with a dialysis line in her neck, running from her jugular vein into her heart. In 2021, it needed replacing. A few days before Sarah was admitted to hospital for the new line, her dad David – Karen’s ex-husband - sadly died. He’d developed a blood clot on his brain after his second Astra Zeneca jab. He was hospitalised and underwent brain surgery. “We were told he was brain dead,” Karen recalls. “Sarah was hysterical, begging the doctors to give him more time. But they said it was too late - the doctor had already made the decision to remove life support and told us he’d be dead within a couple of hours.” By the following morning, he’d gone.

When Sarah was admitted to the same hospital for her neck line procedure, her dad’s dead body was still at the hospital. This naturally compounded the distress she was suffering.

Over the following 18 months, Sarah endured five failed line insertions. The fifth operation lasted a week. The sixth and final operation took place in Manchester in March 2024. It should have taken 30 minutes. It took six hours. When Karen was allowed into the operating theatre after the procedure, she described her daughter as looking “near to death’. Despite this, she was relieved to note that the new line was working.

Sarah – who, despite her struggles, had produced a film (nominated in 2010 for an award) called It’s My Life - later told her mum she wanted to make another documentary, this time focusing on what she had been put through by the NHS over the previous few years. That film is yet to be made.

On September 21st 2025, Sarah collapsed at home. At first, she couldn’t use her left arm or leg but, within hours, the movement returned. Karen was happy to see her daughter was recovering.

At around 4.45am, however, a nurse and doctor appeared and, before Karen could say anything, the nurse had administered three injections. No one said what they were. The doctor whispered to the nurse “her heart will stop now.” He didn’t think Karen could hear him.

“Sarah was dead within five seconds of the doctor making that chilling statement,” says Karen. “I challenged him. He fled.” In total shock and utterly grief-stricken, Karen couldn’t speak for three days.

As soon as her voice returned, Karen reported Sarah’s murder to the police. The medical examiner and coroner promised a full investigation including toxicology. Four months later, the case was quietly closed.

They all told me to do nothing,” Karen says. “Then they all did nothing and, to add insult to injury, the Chief of CID phoned Karen to say that the video of her statement had been lost.”

Karen set about looking for a lawyer. But over a year later, she’s not found one who’ll take the case. Expert barristers told her to try a solicitor. Still no luck. An MP’s office has asked authorities for paperwork for six months and received nothing. There’s no police report the family can obtain, no coroner’s report they can use and no lawyer willing to instruct an independent pathologist for toxicology. She has Sarah’s hospital notes but cannot bear to read them. To this day, she doesn’t know what was in those three injections. “Whatever they gave her killed her,” she insists.

Over a year later and Sarah is still in the morgue. “I can’t deal with anything connected to her death,” Karen admits. “Sarah still being in the morgue is soul-destroying.”

On the first anniversary of Sarah’s murder, Karen sent a brief account to a dozen media outlets. One reply came back, saying they couldn’t cover it because there was “no proof” that Sarah was killed.

Karen hasn’t forgotten about Sarah’s wish to make a documentary. That documentary will now have to be made without Sarah. “Whatever happens, I’m going to do it,” she says. “But it will include everything they did to Sarah.”

Karen feels completely let down by the police, the coroner, the media and the NHS. “I quickly realised how bad every single public service - most of which I’d never used before - actually is,” Karen says. “There are demons working within the NHS. Maybe being around sickness so much hardens them to it - they become inhumane.”

Karen has made several formal complaints to the hospital but has received no help. She now says the only remaining option is to tell the whole story through articles, interviews and videos - not because she wants to start a campaign but because every official door she’s knocked on has stayed firmly shut.

“I’ve seen and suffered so much,” she says. “The NHS and many of the people working for it are utterly appalling. My daughter Sarah was murdered in an NHS hospital and I want justice,” she adds finally. “What parent wouldn’t?”

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/5026854.accrington-film-maker-nominated-top-award/

His latest short video on “NPCs” is the same old act in a slightly new costume. Cox speaks as if he has just wandered out of the laboratory with a fresh discovery about people who run on programs. Mark Bajerski, in a YouTube live on 18 September 2026, laughed at it for exactly that reason. Bajerski’s point was simple: Cox was dressing up “psychological science” about NPCs as if he had discovered the concept himself, when he was only repeating what many others have already said. The irony writes itself. The man lecturing the public about non-player characters sounded, to many watching, just like one!

Cox’s background is part of the spell. Born in Oldham in 1968, he was the keyboard player in Dare, then a session and live keyboardist with D:Ream, the band behind the song ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ - a tune which later became welded to Tony Blair’s political campaign. (What’s the betting those two are besties?) Cox left the music circuit after a bust-up, studied physics at Manchester, took a PhD (probably becoming massively brainwashed in the process) and then rose, with remarkable speed, into the role of all-knowing and cool TV scientist. Many believe he’s been groomed to be David Attenborough’s heir. He’s been ready to step into Attenborough’s well-travelled shoes for decades but it seems the old fella has no intention of handing over his walking boots just yet. Whilst waiting patiently in the wings, Cox quickly became the BBC’s favourite explainer of the cosmos, the pop star scientist, the Liam Gallagher of science, brought in to appeal to kids and trendy adults, wrapped in a persona only the out-of-touch BBC would believe the public would find appealing. A rags-to-riches ascent from a working musician to the nation’s official voice on the meaning of reality itself. What a job! Quite possibly the best gig he’s ever had.

What bothers me more than what he says, however, is the halo he dons while he’s saying it: the idea that a man who once mimed keyboards on Top Of The Pops now speaks from the mountain-top, preaching his science sermons to people too sucked in by celebrity to ever question the nonsense they’re so eagerly gobbling up.

Out of those of us who can see right through him, many believe he’s a shill, positioned right in our line of (tele)vision as a spokesperson for globers and mainstream science-lovers everywhere. In summary, here are 10 reasons why so many of us hear Cox as a government mouthpiece rather than an independent mind:

1. He treats official cosmology as settled dogma and treats any kind of dissent as a personality defect.

2. He has spent years ridiculing Flat Earth questions instead of meeting the public’s distrust of institutions and official narratives with curiosity and humility.

3. He is the house physicist of mainstream television, the face you put on a story when you want it to look like science rather than policy.

4. He repeats establishment lines on the shape of the world - and pretty much everything - as if disagreement were a terminal medical condition.

5. He backed the official Covid narrative and the toxic injection programme that millions now regard as a lethal and unlawful public-health experiment.

6. He sells climate alarm to the young as moral duty, not as a contested field of models, money and politics.

7. He is a tireless promoter of the space agenda - rockets, agencies, the romance of the official heavens.

8. He talks down to ordinary people in the soft, reasonable tone of a man who’s already convinced those people are wrong.

9. He recycles fashionable social psychology - that of NPCs included - and presents the remix as his own brilliant insight.

10. He never dares to bite the hand that feeds him, the people, companies and institutions that made him a star. To him, they must be defended at all times, at all costs, even if it means making the public the problem.

So what’s it all about. Why was Cox bestowed with this role? Is it all down to nepotism, secret societies and peculiar handshakes or did he get where he is today on merit alone?

What it boils down to is that the media needs likeable ‘experts’ who will convey messages those in power want conveyed. They groom friendly-faced semi-celebs into big stars and requiring - and paying - them to share approved content in a way the public will lap up. If these mouthpieces can do this with a tear in their eye and wonder in their voice, even better! Brian Cox is superb at that. Stars, particles, the poetry of the universe - and then, when required, the beration of anyone who will not clap for him.

The YouTube NPC clip fits this pattern. Online culture has used that term for years to describe scripted, low-agency, slogan-first behaviour. Cox arriving late to the party (nothing new there) and wrapping the acronym in academic language is not a breakthrough. It is branding. Bajerski clocked the move - the professor as discoverer of a conversation that was already happening without him - and couldn’t stop laughing.

I’m sure Cox is some sort of intelligent and that particle physics is a real trade. It’s just the costume I doubt…Pop star, TV professor, defender of every sacred government narrative from the shape of Earth to the poisonous Covid jab to the climate classroom to the official story of what’s in the sky… If NPCs are people who have no inner dialogue, who recite a script, then his latest video was not an objective warning from outside the machine. It was the machine itself, smiling - mocking even - and telling you who you are and who to trust.

Note: Grok - another arm of The Machine - insists that the recent clip circulating under titles like ‘What If Half the People You Know Are Actually NPCs?’ uses Professor Brian Cox’s likeness (and possibly an A.I. voice) to discuss philosophical zombies, the lack of an inner monologue in a large share of people, and the idea that some humans may run more like scripted “biological NPCs.” Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. Check for yourself.  https://m.youtube.com/shorts/AQG2hb8SZ08?si=lLoJ9PEstjsss5en

Here also is the Mark Bajerski video mentioned in my article: https://m.youtube.com/live/amFMcJUI974?is=enZ1

That was the whole story. I said so on X: “That’s all I have to report on the interaction.” I know many of my X followers are anti-trans, believing the trans agenda - which, I agree, is no doubt being pushed in schools and via the media - is harmful to children and can pose risks to women. So yes, the agenda is harmful but trans women themselves rarely are.

Anyway, back to the post… I wanted a reaction, for sure - I’m always interested in people’s opinions and love a good debate - but anyone would have thought I’d  announced a war crime. Within hours I was a “traitor to women’s rights”, for having a conversation in a shop. One commentator wrote that I had “chatted with a male pervert invading women's sex-based protected spaces.” Another said I was normalising “a liar.” Someone else posted that “nearly 2/3 of transwomen prisoners are sex offenders” and that “men who hang around female changing rooms are dangerous.”

I understand that those fears did not come from nowhere. They came from news reports, court cases, and statistics that get passed around and parroted until they sound like a verdict on every trans woman in Britain.

They are not. Here’s what the numbers actually say…

In December 2024 the Telegraph and the Mail reported Ministry of Justice figures: of 245 legally male prisoners who identified as women, 151 - 62% - had at least one sexual conviction. That is about two in three of that prison group, against roughly one in four sentenced male prisoners whose current offence is of a sexual nature. Earlier FOI work by Fair Play For Women found the same pattern: rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, child sex offences, indecent images. Canadian prison research found that among gender-diverse prisoners with sex-offence histories, most were trans women, most had offended before identifying as trans, and victims were often female or children.

Those reports matter for prisons. They do not describe the woman in the M&S queue.

A prison snapshot is not a population. Sex offences attract long sentences, so those prisoners stay in the count. Self-identification in custody is not the same thing as “all trans women.” Canadian data found almost all those sexual offences were committed while the person was still living as male. The Dhejne study in Sweden, often waved as proof of unique danger, found that post-surgery male-to-female trans women kept a male pattern of convictions compared with women - and did not differ significantly from men. In other words: male-pattern crime, not a special trans-woman crimewave. Critics of trans women use this information as proof that trans women are men and that’s perfectly understandable. Anti-trans activists repeat this ad infinitum but most would agree that that’s not the main issue. The main issue is whether trans women are a danger to others and, obviously, in the vast majority of cases, they are not.

There are criminals in every section of society but that doesn’t mean we should tar any one group with the same brush.

To date, no one has published a clean national rate showing that the average trans woman in the community is more likely than the average man to commit rape. Anyone who turns “62% of a few hundred prisoners” into “most trans women are sex offenders” is pushing  propaganda, not doing maths. As I wrote in the thread: that reading is “obviously wrong and ridiculous.”

We already know how quickly a shop floor can become a morality play. In August 2025,  M&S apologised after a mother said a tall staff member she believed was trans had politely asked if she and her 14-year-old needed help with lingerie. J.K. Rowling called for a boycott. PinkNews pointed out that nobody had claimed the assistant performed a fitting, and that the employee’s status had not even been confirmed. A trans woman later wrote about having a bra fitting at M&S and commented that “the world didn’t end.” And nor should it. If someone wants to wear a bra, let them! I’m as much for freedom of expression - especially when it comes to what people wear - as I am for freedom of speech, and often ask this: can you have one without the other? I’d say most of my followers on social media, like me, would fight to the end to preserve freedom of speech, but when it comes to someone wearing clothing that’s traditionally associated with the sex they may not have been born as, suddenly that kind of freedom shouldn’t be permitted!

Of course, both instincts can be true at once. Girls and women are entitled to boundaries. As are boys and men. But a friendly conversation is not an assault. (Nobody was harmed during the brief conversation I had anyway.) Treating every trans woman as a lurking offender is not safeguarding. It is a habit of fear.

The useful trick in this debate is for the anti-trans brigade to flatten three different groups into one scary monster.

There are male sex offenders who discover a female identity after charge or conviction. There are trans activists and institutions that treat sex and gender as optional and call women bigots for noticing. And there are ordinary trans women buying a jumper in M & S, who are not on the board of Stonewall, not writing prison policy, and not aligning with any kind of agenda.

The first group belongs in the male estate. The second group, in my opinion, should be argued with, hard. The third group is most of the trans people you might actually meet.

If you want women and trans people at each other’s throats, you inflate the first group until it eats the third. You put a prison statistic next to a changing-room queue and call it the same story. You reward the person posting porn in a comments thread - I said at the time I found that poster’s actions more offensive than the person I had just spoken to - and you punish the woman who reports a pleasant human encounter.

That is divide and rule. It does not protect girls and women. It just makes a small set of worst cases stand in for an entire class of people.

The thread - which is still growing - reflects the UK in miniature. The replies and opinions varied - praise the Lord! - and several people seemed to support my views.

The hostile ones were blunt, talking about the invasion of women’s spaces, damage to children, transgenderism as a fetish and the humiliation of women. Of course, those are not imaginary harms. Karen White, Isla Bryson, and the prison numbers do actually exist. But I see life in a much simpler way. I have always moved in mixed circles and believe that as long as people - whatever sex or gender they are or claim to be - are not harming anyone or pushing their ideology onto others in an aggressive way, I’m OK with it. As I said in the X thread, of course abuse happens - and that’s hideous - but most trans people don’t bother anyone. If I passed a trans woman in a changing room corridor, I would not be alarmed. I’d probably not even notice!

Both registers can sit in one adult brain. I do accept that’s it’s dangerous to put male-pattern sex offenders (even if they’re female) in women’s prisons. I think trans women in women’s sports is dangerous. But it’s also dangerous - and horribly discriminatory - to decide that a pleasant stranger in a clothes shop is a predator because a headline taught you the word “trans.”

One thing I’ve regularly noted is that the majority of people trying to make out that trans women are monsters have never met a trans woman, have never had a conversation with one and most certainly don’t include trans women amongst their friends. I’d suggest being more socially inclusive before deciding to be The Great Judge Of All Things! It never ceases to amaze me how, in this hard-to-navigate world, so many people actively choose to argue from a point of total ignorance.

If you’ve suffered at the hands of a trans woman, being fearful and wary is easy to understand. But does every person who’s been assaulted by a man hold it against all men for ever more? Of course some do, but most do not.

And remember this: trans women who are going about their daily lives, not causing any trouble, are NOT the story the media wants. Newspapers, magazines and TV shows want drama, conflict, one ‘group’ fighting another - this stuff pays their wages! But, unfortunately for the media moguls, trans women are not a movement. They are not two-thirds of anything except, in one grim study, which was basically just a custody count. The rest of them - like the individual I met - are just trying on a jacket.

Eighty-one years later, that story still will not sit still. Not in the archives. Not in the documentaries or films. Not in the books the mainstream would rather you didn’t open. So the question keeps coming back, the one polite and established history is supposed to have buried: did Adolf Hitler really take his own life on 30 April 1945?

The official version is nice and tidy. Soviet troops close in on Berlin. Hitler marries Eva Braun. He dictates a political testament. Then, around 3.30pm, he and Braun die in the private sitting room of the Führerbunker. Aides carry the bodies upstairs, douse them in petrol and burn what they can. Fragments are later recovered. Dentists identify Hitler’s jawbone. Case closed.

Except it never quite closed.

The first problem was the Soviets themselves. Stalin’s people recovered the remains, then spent years mixing autopsy detail with disinformation. At times, Moscow hinted Hitler might still be alive. At other times, they insisted they had the body. The jaw and teeth went to Moscow. Other remains were later dumped. A skull fragment once displayed as “Hitler’s” was, in 2009, reported as female. That one fact has been used ever since as a crowbar against the whole official tale.

Then there are the files. After the war, the FBI and CIA hoovered up hundreds of tips: Hitler in Argentina, Hitler in Colombia, Hitler on a ranch, Hitler on a U-boat. Those papers exist. They are not secret any more. Many choose to believe that these documents are just a pile of second-hand sightings, money-motivated informants and wartime gossip. J. Edgar Hoover’s 1945 line was that there had been no serious indication Hitler was in Argentina. That has not stopped websites treating every faded memo as a smoking gun. In recent years, fact-checkers went out of their way to prove the escape claims false. It’s clear that the documents prove the rumours were collected. But fact-checkers agree that these documents do not prove the rumours were true.

Still, the escape story was popular. Real Nazis did get out. Adolf Eichmann was lifted from Argentina in 1960. Josef Mengele died in Brazil. Klaus Barbie lived openly in Bolivia. These stories weren’t fabricated. If mid-ranking killers could vanish into Patagonia, conspiracy writers asked, why not the boss? Isn’t it feasible that he’d have absconded too? Surely, that would have been a preferable choice for him.

Journalist Abel Basti built a cottage industry on Bariloche. The History Channel’s Hunting Hitler sent former CIA man Bob Baer down the same South American trail for several seasons. Grey Wolf, the book and the film, sold the U-boat-to-Argentina version to a mass audience. None of those productions produced a body however.

On the other side of the ledger sits the dental evidence. Hitler’s teeth were a mess - bridges, crowns, a mouth a dentist could pick out of a line-up. Hugo Blaschke, his dentist, described the work to the Allies. Fritz Echtmann, the technician, later said the Soviets had shown him the lower jaw. In 2017-18, French pathologist Philippe Charlier’s team was allowed to examine the Moscow teeth. Their paper in the European Journal of Internal Medicine said the remains matched the 1944 X-rays and records. No meat fibres, consistent with Hitler’s vegetarian diet. Charlier’s public line was unsparing: the teeth are authentic; he died in 1945; you can stop the Argentina-and-Antarctica stories. The Smithsonian and Deutsche Welle reported the same conclusion. Luke Daly-Groves’ book Hitler’s Death: The Case Against Conspiracy exists almost entirely to nail that lid shut.

So why does that lid keep lifting?

Because the original crime scene was a burning city, a handful of witnesses under Soviet interrogation and a regime that had every reason to muddy the water. Because intelligence agencies filed every crank letter and then, decades later, those letters look like “declassified proof” if you only read the first paragraph. Because television loves a hunt more than a closed file.

A later, even stranger offshoot of the same myth claims Hitler lived long enough to father, or have fathered via stored sperm, Angela Merkel, born in Hamburg on 17 July 1954 - nine years after the bunker. Fact-checkers at USA Today, Reuters and Lead Stories have gone through that one. Merkel’s parents are documented as Horst and Herlind Kasner. Practical human sperm freezing that produced pregnancies was not a 1945 technology; the first reported human births from frozen sperm come from 1953–54 laboratory work in Iowa, not a Berlin bunker.

None of that means every question about 1945 is stupid. The Soviets DID lie. The remains WERE incomplete. A misidentified skull fragment WAS allowed to be named as belonging to Hitler for many years. Those are facts. But critics argue that’s not the same thing as claiming Hitler lived on until the 1970s in Patagonia or Argentina.

If you want to know more about the official story, start with the National WWII Museum’s account of the bunker, Charlier’s 2018 study and Daly-Groves. If you want to learn about the counter-narrative, read Basti, watch Hunting Hitler, and look at the FBI’s raw postwar correspondence.

History’s official last act for Hitler is a gunshot in a concrete hole. The alternative last act is a submarine, a false name and a quiet old age. One of those versions has teeth in a Moscow archive and a chain of witnesses. The other has files full of maybe’s and a television series.

The bunker may have burned. But the questions certainly didn’t.

References:

BOOKS

Hitler’s Death: The Case Against Conspiracy — Luke Daly-Groves (Bloomsbury, 2019)

https://books.google.com/books/about/Hitler_s_Death.html?id=aW90DwAAQBAJ

Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler — Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams (2011)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolf:_The_Escape_of_Adolf_Hitler

Bariloche Nazi / El exilio de Hitler / Hitler en Argentina / La tumba de Hitler — Abel Basti

https://www.books-by-isbn.com/authors/abel/basti/

FILMS AND DOCUMENTARIES

Hunting Hitler (History Channel, 2015–2018; special 2020)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_Hitler

https://www.history.com/shows/hunting-hitler

Grey Wolf: Hitler’s Escape to Argentina (2014) - dir. Gerrard Williams

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2493402/

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/286794-grey-wolf-the-escape-of-adolf-hitler

STUDIES AND SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

The remains of Adolf Hitler: A biomedical analysis and definitive identification - Charlier et al., European Journal of Internal Medicine, Vol. 54 (2018)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953620518301912

Fertilizing Capacity of Frozen Human Spermatozoa - Bunge and Sherman, Nature, Vol. 172 (24 Oct 1953)

https://www.nature.com/articles/172767b0

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13111181/

OFFICIAL FILES AND INSTITUTIONAL REPORTS

FBI Records: The Vault - Adolf Hitler

https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler

The Death of Adolf Hitler - The National WWII Museum

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/death-of-adolf-hitler

NEWS ARTICLES AND FACT CHECKS

Hitler’s Teeth Confirm He Died in 1945 - Smithsonian Magazine

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hitlers-teeth-confirm-he-died-1945-180969133/

Teeth test dispels myths of Hitler’s survival - Deutsche Welle

https://www.dw.com/en/hitler-teeth-test-dispels-myths-of-nazi-leaders-survival/a-43861719

Adolf Hitler: The FBI Files - The Black Vault

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/adolf-hitler-the-fbi-files/

Claims that former German Chancellor Angela Merkel was Hitler’s daughter - USA Today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/03/01/angela-merkel-not-hitlers-daughter/72794702007/

Two years later, he refused the Covid jab. “Which went down like a lead balloon in that institution,” she writes.

In mid-October 2021 he phoned her to ask for his father’s number. He sounded unlike himself. “Mum, I’ve had a terrible life, haven’t I?” he said.

She knew what he meant. At 20, his two children had been taken into care and adopted through no fault of his own. “Those children were his life,” says Rosalind “and losing them broke him.” He fell into depression, pills, drugs and alcohol.

On 16 November 2021, his 48th birthday, a social worker rang before Rosalind could call him. She was told he had died in hospital on 11 November after being admitted in late October. Rosalind couldn’t believe what she was hearing.

“Died? He had DIED? How could that be? And why didn’t anyone tell us at the time? I felt sick, confused, and so shocked, as if I’d been kicked in the stomach. My beautiful son had gone through all that without me or anyone he loved knowing and with no family at his side.”

Asked why the family had not been told of the hospital admission, the social worker said they could not find Rosalind’s phone number. The cause given for James’ sudden death was Covid.

Rosalind contacted the hospital and had his notes read out. He had been admitted with a cough. One entry said he refused prescribed medication, then had a fall, then a brain scan. He was moved to a Covid ward, put on a ventilator - “unnecessarily, in my opinion”, says Rosalind - and given midazolam and morphine. It turned out that the intubation was poorly done and this allegedly led to his death. The heavy-duty drugs didn’t help. “I believe if he hadn’t been so heavily drugged with midazolam, he’d still be here today.”

When she told the Coroner’s Office she did not believe he had died of Covid, a post-mortem was arranged. It found bleeding into the lung tree caused by the intubation. His organs were in good condition and there was no mention of a respiratory illness. Despite this, the conclusion was a “Covid type” death.

“I was so angry,” says Rosalind. “My son had just been cut into pieces, his organs shoved back into his body, then we were given this final insult by the coroner.”

Staff were initially helpful. Rosalind was assigned an ex-police officer and a team and told there would be a full investigation. Months later she learned they were no longer on the case and that an inquest had already been held, three months after the post-mortem, without her knowledge.

“I started to understand how corrupt the system is. James was costing the NHS thousands of pounds a month and because he was a bit of a maverick - knowing Covid was a hoax and refusing the jabs - I reckon he became a target.”

She had heard the NHS was paid per “Covid” death and wondered if that explained the listing. “I wanted to fight but I was too distressed and tired and knew in my heart that it was fruitless to even try.”

After his death, a social worker tactlessly and disrespectfully said James caught Covid because he was an “anti-vaxxer.” Staff and a pastor wanted a local funeral. But James’s parents brought him home to Somerset instead. “The social worker and pastor went cold on me after that,” claims Rosalind.

The funeral director collected the body. She wanted to dress James in his best clothes but was told the body-bag could not be opened. “They told me it was ‘Covid rules’. Because of those rules, I never saw my boy after he died and never knew for sure if it was my son in that body-bag.” The director said James measured 6ft 6ins. He was 5ft 4ins.

On the day of the funeral, the pallbearers struggled with the coffin and almost dropped it. Her husband, a former crematorium manager, said it felt far too heavy. The ashes were heavy too. “So was my boy in that coffin? Was it him or was it someone or something else?” wonders Rosalind. “I guess we’ll never know.”

Almost five years on, she writes through tears. “I believe I lost my beloved son to an evil protocol, a deathly plan that used end-of-life drugs and ventilators to kill and which has affected - and united - myself and countless others in collective grief and heartache.”

She feels James  watching her as she tries her best to get justice for him. “I hear him say ‘go for it, Mum!’ And that’s what makes me certain that, by speaking out and by sharing his story, I’m doing the right thing.”

Rosalind’s harrowing first-person account is published Murdered By The State - available here: https://www.jacquideevoy.co.uk/products-store/p/murdered-by-the-state-by-jacqui-deevoy

No one worked harder for his patients than Dr Trincomalee Rajeswaran Vijayakumar. Retired A&E trauma surgeon Dr Kumar to his patients, Kumar to his friends, he had spent a career working day and night in emergency care, long before "palliative care" was commonplace. He was always there for others. However, when he needed emergency care himself, aged 89, no one came.

Kumar walked into hospital unaccompanied on 11 July 2023, suffering from shortness of breath. After a 13-hour wait he was given a bed and, some days later, moved to a side room on a respiratory ward and put on high-flow oxygen via nasal cannula. Suspected of having pneumonitis, he stabilised. He said he felt well in himself, although he could not breathe without oxygen support.

Two weeks later, everything changed. The respiratory consultant told him it would take at least six weeks to see real improvement, given his age, and that "a positive attitude was everything." That same day, she reduced his oxygen - despite his blood gas results showing low blood oxygen. He told her he was reluctant: oxygen, he said, was vital for tissue regeneration. However, his wishes counted for little. It was, his daughter Jan now believes, the beginning of the end.

Over the days that followed, his saturations plummeted from 98% to a dangerous 77%. Starved of oxygen, he was pushed onto the respiratory-depressant Oramorph - a drug he had repeatedly made clear he did not want.

"The cruelty of the oxygen deprivation he endured over the succeeding eight days never leaves me," says Jan. Nurses refused his repeated requests to increase it, even as he struggled to breathe.

One evening, she arrived to find his saturations at 77%. "They hadn't been expecting me," she says. "Despite his vast medical experience, the nurses had turned the monitor away from him, so that he couldn't see how low they were keeping his saturations."

Her father described two of the nurses attending him - one male, one female - as "a lethal combination." They repeatedly entered his room at night, turning his oxygen down, causing him to desaturate and wake up, gasping for breath. It was only afterwards, from his medical records and the hospital diary he kept, that Jan discovered he had been asking for more oxygen when she wasn't there, but being refused. "I discovered later that he had written in his diary, 'What conspiracy is this?'"

Visiting hours were heavily restricted. Much later, Jan learned that a PA (physician assistant), whom she had believed to be a nurse, was making major decisions about his care - effectively, he was her patient. From his diary, it is clear Kumar believed she was a doctor; she worked almost completely unsupervised. Before working at the hospital, this nurse had been an optical assistant at Specsavers. He trusted what she told him, including his blood test results and the sudden news, on 2 August, that he was going to die imminently.

When the family realised the extent of the oxygen deprivation, they sent four letters to the Chief Executive. But no help came. Instead, Kumar began to be pressured onto an end-of-life pathway. A new consultant arrived and, within 20 minutes, referred him to palliative care without taking any time to get to know his patient. Kumar said he wasn’t dying and refused palliative care. However, the medics would not take ‘no’ for an answer.

A friend of his - also a retired surgeon - later visited Jan. She was at her father’s house, surrounded by his belongings. "Why on earth were they discussing palliative care with Kumar?" he said. "He wasn't a terminally ill patient - he didn't even have a diagnosis!"

On the morning of 2 August, the new consultant and the PA cornered Kumar alone. They told him he would not be going home, would not survive the admission, and needed to accept palliative care because the treatment wasn't working; they said they had done a lot for him and didn’t want to perform any more tests. His desperate requests for a diagnosis were refused - he hadn’t even been given an echocardiogram despite his symptoms, blood results and an abnormal ECG. His records show he was too upset by the news to proceed with physiotherapy. Observation charts show his respiratory rate rose to 43 BPM (normal 12–18) when they told him he was dying. However, they did nothing to help him: no increase in oxygen, no CPAP.

At a family meeting, the consultant and PA sought permission to sedate him until he died. "I couldn't believe what I was hearing," Jan recalls. "The consultant had a very strange expression on his face - I'd describe it as 'faux concern'. I was struck by their lack of sincerity. They knew that my father was suffering due to lack of oxygen, but they were talking about focusing on his comfort and giving him dignity. Also, if he were considered palliative, why had they been down-titrating his oxygen so aggressively? None of it made any sense”.

The family requested a second opinion. That afternoon, another respiratory consultant from the same hospital examined him . He was upbeat, agreeing Kumar should have more time and as much oxygen as needed. "I felt so relieved," says Jan. Unbeknown to her, however, her father's medication had already been stopped and active care withdrawn. As she left the ward, she passed the two consultants standing together. The second-opinion doctor was chirpy: "I'm just making a note of what we agreed," he said.

"Why did he feel the need to explain himself to me?" Jan asks. "I experienced a pang of uneasiness. The bottom line is that my father didn't look as if he were dying - he was very much alert and asking for a second opinion," she continues. "He had resisted Oramorph as much as possible, but they had weakened him significantly by withholding care."

Both the consultant and the PA - who professes a special interest in palliative care and teaches trainee physician assistants - were, in Jan's opinion, coercing Kumar towards an unlawful assisted death. "He wasn't seen as a person, but as an obstacle to be eliminated from the ward," Jan states. "It didn't matter that essential scans had never been performed or that his condition might be reversible."

Jan now knows they had also removed his medication: long-term high blood pressure drugs, anticoagulants and high-dose steroids. After a week of oxygen and sleep deprivation, this, in her opinion, virtually guaranteed he would not survive. Despite his full mental capacity, the medication was withdrawn without his or Jan's consent, without legal process or consultation. Notes falsely claimed he had refused intensive care and that the family were aware of this - what he did not want was invasive ventilation. The PA had written "DNR" across the records that morning with no consultation, despite Kumar having signed a notice of authority for Jan to be involved in his care.

"A man who had worked tirelessly to save the lives of so many others, who was conscientious to a fault, was denied basic investigations because he was elderly and his life deemed unworthy of saving, unworthy of effort," says Jan. "I later discovered that he had been given a grossly inflated frailty score of six despite his fierce independence and ongoing care for others."

Late on 2 August, around 11.30pm, Jan had felt uneasy. "It struck me that, if my father survived, the coercive consultant would be proved wrong and that they really wouldn't like this. Something told me to go to the hospital, but I convinced myself I was being paranoid."

At 2.45am her mobile rang - her father's number. A nurse said he had been trying to call and she had better come in. "I felt like I was in a trance - I couldn't think clearly."

She found her father in a dark room with an on-call registrar and a nurse she had never seen before. The ward was silent. He was breathless, with chest pain and backache. The registrar told him he had reached the 'ceiling of care.' Jan asked her father what had happened. "He said he had been woken from sleep when 'they' entered his room and that, after that, he became so restless that he didn't know what to do." His systolic blood pressure had surged, Jan later discovered, to at least 201.

As morphine had not relieved his pain, Midazolam was offered to "take the edge off." Jan did not want it administered, but the pain was becoming so bad that her father couldn't lie on his back. She now believes a hypertensive emergency was triggered by the abrupt medication withdrawal, and that he should have had a chest X-ray, echocardiogram and ECG. She asked if his anticoagulants had been given; the doctor went to check but returned without an answer. Neither the nurse who injected the Midazolam nor the registrar kept proper records; both deny he ever had chest pain.

After a large syringe of Midazolam was injected into his abdomen, Jan's father started mumbling incoherently, then lost consciousness. "I didn't realise it at the time, but that was his last ever attempt to communicate with me," Jan says.

The registrar said the effects of the Midazolam would wear off in about two hours. Though presented as a painkiller, Midazolam has no analgesic properties and can actually heighten pain. "I now know that he would likely have been suspended in overwhelming pain for five-and-a-half hours, unable to communicate." No one, she says, attempted to monitor his breathing.

The next morning, the coercing consultant appeared as Kumar lay unresponsive. His expression said, 'I told you so.' "I was enraged to see him, but spoke calmly," Jan recalls. "I told him that he had robbed my father of all hope, and reminded him that the previous consultant had said a positive attitude was 'everything'. He replied that my father's medication had been stopped the day before, and that it was not his decision." She declined his offer of putting a syringe driver on her father and asked him to leave.

Jan now believes her father's medication was stopped as soon as this consultant started on the ward.

Nursing notes for that night are barely existent; those that do exist were written hours later and appear to belong to another patient. When Jan had arrived, the water bag for the oxygen device was empty. "I find it hard to bear that I wasn't there when he needed me the most."

Jan waited more than five hours for her father to wake. He never regained consciousness. "Although his fingers had turned blue, until the moment his heart stopped beating, part of me still held onto hope. I will never forget the emptiness and disbelief I felt the moment he slipped away."

After a lengthy battle with the hospital, Jan finally issued proceedings in order to obtain her father’s blood test results. Two suggested acute heart failure; others pointed to kidney issues and possible acute kidney injury. Kumar had specifically requested an NT-proBNP test for heart failure, but his results were never shared with him. Autoimmune screen results and an elevated IgE were also ignored and never shared, despite Jan's explicit requests for these tests. "I couldn’t believe what I was reading. The withholding of these results from us meant we had been unable to make informed decisions about his care," she says. "Why did they hide my father's blood test results from us?"

More than three years after her father's death, her quest for answers continues.

Jan’s first-person account of her father’s murder can be found in the book Murdered By The State - available here: https://www.jacquideevoy.co.uk/products-store/p/murdered-by-the-state-by-jacqui-deevoy

David looked well. He’d dropped nearly two stone on a carnivore stretch - fatty meat, ghee, tallow, water, fasting. Cholesterol down. Weight down. Metabolism improving. “A patient cured is a customer lost,” he said, dry as ever. I told him I smear beef tallow on my face. He laughed. Then we got to the part that isn’t funny.

David is a struck-off doctor. Not because a patient was harmed. Not because medical notes were altered. Not because he sold fake exemption certificates - a document that, he pointed out, didn’t even exist. The GMC found him guilty of creating papers nobody produced. When his team asked for dates, wording, countries of use, the answer was: we haven’t got the documents. What they did have was a WhatsApp exchange with a troll who asked for a letter of support. David wrote five such letters. They were statements of bodily autonomy. Signed. Honest. That was enough.

The other charge was “harassment” of the people who had been harassing him. Bidirectional online rows. The regulator framed only his replies. Two hundred and sixty-four complaints arrived after the event. Five weak ones made the cut. The pack did its work.

I have been on the receiving end of the same pack. Same accounts. Same scripts. Same sudden interest the moment you mention the jab. David says they’re ravening wolves with special powers. When he took his wife’s advice and shut social media for a month to starve them of oxygen, it got worse. Barnardo’s. Children’s services. Neighbours. His ex-wife. Phone calls. It stopped being “ignore the trolls” and started being a campaign that followed him offline.

Halloween night, a knock on the door. David thought it was trick-or-treaters. It was the Disclosure and Barring Service. Eight weeks later, the letter: barred for life from working with children and vulnerable adults. The reason, almost word for word as he remembers it, was that he had been willing to flout “international policy” and let his own ideas overrule set rules in a pandemic. Therefore, if he ever worked with children, he might one day overrule a safeguarding policy. Minority Report. A crime that has not happened. There were no children in the GMC case. He has four of his own. No historic safeguarding concern in medicine, football or private life. The barred list does the rest of the work for the public imagination. People hear “barred from children” and fill in the blanks themselves.

Refereeing at amateur football matches had been David’s escape - Saturday adult games, Sunday youth, sixty-four matches in a season, a promotion he wasn’t allowed to have announced because it would be “bad press.” Trolls were sending the FA twenty complaints a week, accusing him of being racist, homophobic, of spreading misinformation and harming patients - none of it about football. The FA binned the fraudulent reports and called him to say so. Then the DBS listing arrived and logic left the building.

Playing open-age football is not a regulated activity. Youth games are never unsupervised: coaches, managers, parents, twenty-odd other players. None of that mattered. Dr. Cartland’s ban covered youth football, veterans, taking his son’s friends to training, even “active spectating.” He was told he had to sit with the other parents at all times, make no noise and not to speak to his son or his friends at matches. He appealed. Five months later, two senior safeguarding figures upheld the ban.

Why Cartland though? Why does he seemed to come under attack more than other GPs? He doesn’t know, and neither do the police. So who are the individuals making his life hell? Well, there’s a sheep farmer up north who boasts of running a network; a local editor who wrote ten hit pieces in a fortnight and a Pride-week homophobia splash. IPSO threw the complaint out twice. Solicitors wanted £40,000 to sue. Another paper ran a fantasy about him running a troll syndicate. A massage-parlour owner in Thailand posting thousands of times, A.I. images, a YouTube channel that slurs him in the title. A troll in his own village photographing him walking the dog. One of them posted that he was personally responsible for the strike-off, the DBS listing and the FA ban, that they had taken his hobby, and that the next targets were a cell and the rescinding of his degrees. David walked into the police station with two thick files and a memory stick of the lot. Three interviews under caution for him. None for them. The officer told him not to call himself doctor.

From my interview with David, that’s the bit that stays with me most. His children seeing police at the door. The playground talk. A wife who married a doctor and now watches the family name get kicked around the local paper. Depression, hopelessness, insomnia. Ten thousand pounds already spent on a DBS appeal. Twenty to fifty thousand more if you want a real fight. Injustice that won’t sit still in the chest.

I asked if part of him just wants to walk away. He said the targeting continues because he won’t shut up. He still talks about the harm Covid jabs have caused. Victims include people who lost legs, had heart damage, neurological issues - and were told it was a coincidence. Point that at the attackers and the answer is always the same two words: safe and effective. No debate.

He still believes most doctors know. In his last surgery they commended him privately and told him they were seeing the same issues. He knows of three nurses with heart trouble after the jab but who then carried on administering it. Four-fifths of doctors, he says, refused further doses after the first two - not because they’d been affected but because they were seeing what was happening to their patients.

In Cornwall now, he hears, young people arrive at the GP surgery with chest pain and staff immediately ask how many jabs they’ve had, which brand, and whether there was an immediate reaction.

What can people do? Keep talking in real life. Don’t leave the sleeping asleep. Watch Breaking the Silence Conversations on David’s YouTube channel, where whistleblowers, the injured, the bereaved speak out about their experiences. He was kicked off X for naming a bully but is back now with a vengeance. He is still on Instagram and Facebook, still posting studies until the argument has nowhere left to hide.

I told him I think he will be vindicated. I do. The paperwork can call him a danger. The FA can take the whistle. The barred list can do its whisper campaign. None of that changes the five letters he actually wrote, or the documents nobody ever produced, or the simple fact that he would not parrot the narrative and do as he was told.

Twenty minutes is not long enough to take in such a tragedy. It is long enough to see the shape of it though: first they take the job, then the hobby, then the language you are allowed to use about yourself.

But Dr. Cartland is still speaking. And that, I suspect, is the part they hate the most and that, try as they might, they can never take away.

Watch the full interview here: https://youtu.be/YMhL9qRgx-E?is=3jN1J7hn0qOfaCKL

The binding agent is motive, not method. Each domain has real harms, real scandals and real uncertainties. Non-believers consistently claim that there’s no evidence of the existence of a coordinated plot to thin the human race.

So let’s see if that’s true. Could the theory be yet another ‘conspiracy theory’ concocted in the fevered minds of doomsayers desperate to believe the worst? Or might there be some truth in it?

The majority - including A.I. programmed by the majority - amazingly, still trusts their government and believes their leaders have the public’s best interests at heart. A smaller percentage of folk believe the absolute opposite. Consensus doesn’t equal truth, however, so it’s only right to look at both sides of the story.

What follows is not a defence of every hospital, regulator or manufacturer. It is a check on whether the eight usual “tentacles” are actually doing the work assigned to them.

1. Vaccines

The claim is that mass immunisation, especially via the controversial Covid shots, is a sterilising or lethal campaign. A 2024 Lancet modelling study estimated that immunisation against 14 pathogens since 1974 averted about 154 million deaths, most of them in children. How the maths is calculated is a bit of a mystery but the medical industry is forever coming up with these sweeping claims and these claims are continually parroted by the media and the people who want to believe them. Covid jabs now have ‘rare’ documented harms: myocarditis after mRNA shots; thrombosis with thrombocytopenia after some adenoviral products. Safety systems in the UK and US treat those as signals, not as proof of intent. Analyses that convert “deaths after vaccination” in Office for National Statistics tables into “deaths caused by vaccination” ignore that most adults were vaccinated and that most deaths have other causes. Fact-checks of US extrapolations from UK status data claim the same. Excess deaths after 2020 track infection, delayed care and ageing far more tightly than dose counts. Vaccines can injure and kill but were they designed to be an instrument of genocide? The jury remains undecided although most people in ‘truther’ would agree that they are definitely one part of the depopulation agenda.

2. Pharmaceutical drugs

Here the critique is stronger and does not need a cabal. English coroners’ Prevention of Future Deaths reports, analysed in Drug Safety (2023), found medicines are involved in about one in five preventable deaths they reviewed, with opioids leading, then antidepressants and hypnotics. It’s said that the US opioid crisis is a study in over-promotion, weak regulation and downstream street supply. A JAMA Network Open analysis of Global Burden of Disease data found US mortality from adverse effects of medical treatment had fallen modestly from 1990 to 2016, while remaining concentrated in older patients. It’s classed as iatrogenic harm and commercial capture and is considered by most NOT to be a population-reduction programme. Non-believers trust the pharmaceutical industry and argue that if it were involved in some kind of plan to kill people, then why does the same industry also manufacture and sell drugs that extend life? The answer to that is obvious to those who think depopulation is underway with talk of ‘customers for life’ always rife and amongst those who wouldn’t take any kind of allopathic medicine or treatment even if you paid them, believing that these drugs and interventions do nothing but harm and kill.

3. End-of-life pathways and palliative care

The UK’s Liverpool Care Pathway became a public scandal for a reason. Baroness Neuberger’s 2013 review found tick-box use, poor communication, financial incentives in some trusts, and cases where food and fluids were withdrawn without enough individual assessment. The pathway was withdrawn. Families still report similar patterns under other names. In 2020, the abolished pathway appeared to return disguised as Covid protocol NG163 and millions now believe that this was responsible for the untimely deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Films have been produced and books and articles have been written (links below) that document this alleged cull, the victims mainly the elderly and disabled. Bereaved relatives are adamant that their loved ones were murdered a) to boost the statistics on covid deaths: many of the victims had Covid listed on their death certificates as the cause of death, even when it was quite clear they’d died of something else, and b) as part of a warped (and warp speed) depopulation strategy. They truly believe they have witnessed a failure of care, erroneous diagnoses of dying and an unacceptable lack of consent - and this, for them and many others adds up to a national euthanasia algorithm. UK law still treats deliberate shortening of life as homicide yet no arrests have been made. The ethical line is real: there is no duty to prolong dying but it’s also illegal to speed up or end a person’s life. To end it without discussion is abuse and it’s unlawful. Many describe it as involuntary euthanasia; others call it murder.

4. Ventilators and hospital treatment

Early in Covid, mortality on mechanical ventilation was high - meta-analyses put case fatality among ventilated patients around 50 per cent in pooled data, with large variation by wave, country and patient mix. Claims that ventilators were killing patients are prevalent but is this accurate? It’s known that ventilators should only be used as a last resort due to risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia and death with a 20% survival rate of those who are put on them. Some researchers claim it’s the disease, not the machine, that cause ld so many deaths. Others beg to differ. UK ICU series linked deaths of those on ventilators to refractory hypoxaemia and delayed prone positioning, not to a protocol to smother patients. Ventilators injure lungs if misused. They’ve also been said to save people. Most of those who died on ventilators would have been given a benzodiazepine such as Midazolam to ease distress but experts and families of the deceased have claimed that this respiration-depressing drug contributed towards many ventilator deaths.

5. Organ donation/harvesting

Donation after ‘brain death’ and after circulatory death is legal only after death is declared under published criteria. The US has seen a sharp rise in donation after circulatory death as transplant lists grow. That shift raises hard questions about timing, permanence of circulatory arrest and pressure on procurement organisations. In 2026, HHS moved to decertify at least one organ procurement organisation after reviews found cases with neurological signs “incompatible with organ donation” and pressure to proceed. Those are governance and definition-of-death failures. People used to trust that brain death was actually a real medical state but, in recent years, the criteria has been challenged and questions are now being asked. In documentaries such as ‘The Gift Of Life?’ we see old narratives being dissected and doctors admitting that ‘brain dead’ patients are not dead at all. Dr. Heidi Klessig admits in an interview for the film and in her book ‘The Brain Death Fallacy’ that’s she’s been complicit in “murder by dismemberment”. But does any of this prove that organ harvesting is not only a means of procuring organs but that it’s also a depopulation policy? Many think so. Living people are not supposed to be opened for parts; when process collapses, although the right response is prosecution and tighter criteria, this doesn’t stop critical thinkers from deducing that transplant ‘medicine’ exists to cull the public.

6.  Chemtrails

The claim is that persistent white lines behind jets are sprayed chemicals for weather or fertility control. US EPA and UK government explain them as contrails: water vapour in exhaust freezing in cold, humid air. A 2016 survey in Environmental Research Letters found 76 of 77 atmospheric chemists and deposition specialists had never seen evidence of a secret spraying programme; alleged samples were consistent with ordinary contrails and dirty sampling. Persistent trails last hours when the upper air is ice-supersaturated. Aviation does add climate forcing via contrail cirrus. That is an environmental problem. It is not barium mind-control. This is what we’re told. Increasing numbers of people do not believe it and are certain that those lines in the sky have a far more sinister purpose - namely to poison populations and kill off huge swathes of us.

7. Toxic food

Ultra-processed food is the tentacle with a large evidence base. A BMJ umbrella review linked higher UPF intake to cardiometabolic disease, common mental disorders and mortality, with mixed GRADE quality. A UK Biobank analysis associated higher UPF share of diet with overall and ovarian cancer incidence and with cancer death. A 30-year US cohort in The BMJ found a rise in all-cause death at high intake, strongest for ready-to-eat meats and sugary drinks. The mainstream narrative is that profit, convenience and weak reformulation rules explain the market better than a plan to reduce fertility and poison people but this view is becoming increasingly unpopular, believing that the harm is not only commercial and structural but deliberate too.

8. Toxic water

Lead pipes (Flint), PFAS, agricultural nitrate and, in some places, excess natural fluoride are real. The US EPA has begun setting PFAS limits measured in parts per trillion. Community fluoridation at about 0.7 mg/L is still judged by UK reviews to cut decay and hospital extractions, with mild fluorosis as the main adverse effect and no clear IQ signal below about 1.2 mg/L; evidence of IQ effects clusters at higher exposures, often well above UK/US targets, and remains contested. It’s said that pollution and decaying infrastructure do not require a depopulation committee but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

So what’s REALLY going on?

Eugenics was a real twentieth-century political project. It does not, however, licence treating every modern risk as its sequel. The eight files above contain negligence, perverse incentives, weak evidence and even malpractice in hospital settings, vaccine harms and deaths, opioid - and other harmful drugs - marketing, dirty water and toxic industrialised food. Those are enough to justify anger, questions and ultimate reform. But those who think a depopulation agenda is just a crazy theory concocted in the minds of the paranoid, reckon the idea is not solid enough to justify the existence of a depopulation ‘octopus’, and that people who worry that every plane, pill and tap is an assassination tool are seriously deluded. But are they delusional? Or are they simply waking up to the truth - that depopulation is a real agenda and is that it’s something that must be stopped?

These hoax-weavers were very manipulative, very clever; they’d done this before. They knew how to trick people into believing stuff that simply wasn’t true. They used a combination of fake fear and threats to get the masses to do as they were told and to do their bidding. They convinced the people that if they didn’t believe and comply, they would be seen as not only idiots but “conspiracy theorists’.

So they positioned themselves to start the con. They were not, of course, sitting at looms in a dusty attic. They were governments, health agencies, newspaper editors, broadcasters and the usual chorus of ‘experts’ who never seemed to lose their jobs no matter how many times the script changed and regardless of how often they got things wrong.

Their cloth, they said, was invisible to the stupid, the disloyal and the dangerously unscientific. Only the wise, the virtuous, the compassionate and those who truly followed “the science” would be able to see it and that those who couldn’t see it clearly had a screw loose.

The public - the emperor - stood in the square, shivering but still insisting that the emperor’s new rig-out not only existed but was also most magnificent outfit ever. I was one of the many people who couldn’t see the new clothes - they simply didn’t exist - and I made no bones about telling anyone who’d listen.

I have been a journalist long enough to recognise a sales pitch when I hear one. I have also been around long enough to know what happens when an entire room decides that stating the bloody obvious will get you banished from the dinner party. These banishers are represented in the fairytale by the crowd in the square. The mainstream media - the newspapers, the TV and radio - are represented by courtiers, taking the messages from the weavers to the emperor and lying when reporting on the progress.

In real life in 2020, neighbours, work colleagues, GPs who used to trust their own eyes but who were suddenly adhering to government rules and protocols, family members who would rather swallow a slogan than risk an argument. They praised the cut of Covid. They admired the drape. They marvelled at its creation. They posted the official graphics. They told the rest of us we were selfish, granny-killers or “conspiracy theorists” if we mentioned that the emperor appeared to be wearing nothing at all.

Fear of looking stupid is a powerful tailor. Fear of being confronted is an even more powerful one. Once you have applauded, it becomes expensive - not to mention embarrassing - to suddenly stop clapping.

So the weavers kept weaving. Two weeks (to flatten the curve in real life) became months. The weavers kept coming up with reasons for the delay, kept coming up with excuses and new methods of keeping the emperor interested and the courtiers doing their bidding.

For the majority, following the arrows on supermarket floors and standing six feet away from other people became a moral obligation. Accepting and succumbing to taking the experimental injections became a religion. Non-believers were criticised and ostracised. Deaths from all the usual things were folded into the new story with a speed that would have impressed any court magician. Question the PCR tests, the changing definitions, the midazolam protocols in care homes and hospitals, the refusal of newspapers to print the early jab-injury accounts that landed in my inbox in January 2021 and you were not a citizen asking questions. You were a child shouting in church. An adult laughing at a funeral. Disrespectful. Crazy. To question the official narrative was not only viewed as blasphemous but seen as a kind of madness too. The general consensus back then was that truth-tellers needed to be labelled, insulted and stopped, mainly because they were making those who’d been sucked in by the Covid cult look like idiots.

As pretty much everyone who’s ever read The Emperor’s New Clothes’ understands, the child who speaks out, declaring the emperor’s naked, in the fairytale was right.

As readers, we didn’t once think the weavers were being honest. We knew all along they were scheming con artists.

But when we get conned in our own daily lives, even though our instincts are screaming NO, most people - for an easy life - say YES and go along with it. They don’t want to draw attention to themselves; they don’t want to make a fuss.

The child in the story was telling the truth, something the adults were too scared to do. The child was stating that what everyone had been told was a lie - and no one wants to accept they’ve been lied to, even when the truth stands naked before you.

The people dismissed as conspiracy theorists in 2020 were the ones who still used their senses, who couldn’t bow down to ridiculous rules and demands, the ones who could see through the blatant untruths and weren’t too shy or afraid to speak out. They noticed - as I did - back in March 2020 that a “high consequence” disease was quietly recategorised to a NOT a high consequence disease. They noticed hospitals standing down ordinary care. They saw that people were dying in hospitals - but rarely at home - from being put unnecessarily on ventilators, from neglect, malpractice and deadly new ‘covid protocols’ (or death pathways, as I chose to call them). They noticed healthy people dying suddenly after the rollout of hurriedly developed ‘vaccines’, while editors explained they could not run those stories because it might “jeopardise the vaccine programme.” They noticed that the cloth kept changing colour depending on who was holding it and who was looking at it.

I lost faith in the mainstream media at that time, not because I enjoy being awkward, but because I kept offering editors documented human stories - a 70-year-old who lay down after the AstraZeneca shot and never woke up; families describing NG163 and end-of-life pathways that looked nothing like the care their relatives had been promised or should have received - and was told, in so many words, that the emperor’s new outfit was NOT to be discussed. Not by the mainstream media anyway.

Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale is not about vanity, as many people think. It is about collusion. The weavers need the courtiers. The courtiers need the emperor to buy into the lie. They need the crowd to be onside, to be cheering, clapping, banging saucepans when the emperor revealed himself. They also needed everyone to be serious, not to laugh at the emperor’s obvious nakedness and to convince everyone around them that not only is the emperor wearing clothes but the most beautiful clothes ever seen! Everyone needs the child to be wrong, because if the child is right then a great many grown-ups will have to admit they spent years applauding a ridiculous parade, cheering on a meaningless and ultimately embarrassing charade.

Humans will go a long way to avoid being the person who ruins the ceremony, who rains on what they’re told is a glorious parade. No one is comfortable being THAT person, even the people who ended up being just that. It’s not a comfortable role. But in a classroom full of liars, the hoodwinked and the fearful, someone has to raise their hand and say “this is BS!”

This is why so many still flinch at the word “scamdemic,” even as official inquiries, excess-death graphs and quietly-deleted web pages accumulate. Even though more and more people realise they were royally conned, it’s still hard for them to accept that they denied their own senses, let go of logic and fell - hook, line and sinker - for the lie.

The weavers have now moved on to their next collection of invisible garments, of course. They always do. New falsehoods, new fabrics, a new team working alongside them, but with the same insistence that only the enlightened can see their creations. The courtiers are already stroking the invisible hem, admiring the quality of the workmanship.

But the child is still in the crowd, ready to state the obvious, keen to observe and to speak the truth that the adults are too terrified to tell.

Somebody had to say it: the King was naked. He has been naked for years. And still is. And the people who pointed it out first were not the villains of the piece. They were the only ones brave and honest enough to shout out the truth in a square full of cleverly dressed silence.

Here’s a little cartoon version of the famous fairytale: https://youtu.be/z9mQoJU-6I0

“In the future, we will eliminate the soul with medicine. Under the pretext of a ‘healthy point of view’, there will be a vaccine by which the human body will be treated as soon as possible directly at birth, so that the human being cannot develop the thought of the existence of soul and Spirit.

To materialistic doctors, will be entrusted the task of removing the soul of humanity. As today, people are vaccinated against this disease or that disease, so in the future, children will be vaccinated with a substance that can be produced precisely in such a way that people, thanks to this vaccination, will be immune to being subjected to the ‘madness’ of spiritual life.

He would be extremely smart, but he would not develop a conscience, and that is the true goal of some materialistic circles.

With such a vaccine, you can easily make the etheric body loose in the physical body.”

That block is not a single verbatim paragraph from one lecture. Steiner scholars and the Rudolf Steiner Archive have repeatedly noted that the popular internet version is a composite: phrases drawn from different talks, freely translated, and stitched together without marking the joins.

The core ideas, however, do appear in Steiner’s 1917 lectures, especially The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness (GA 177), given in Dornach on 7th and 27th October 1917.

On 7th October he said that just as the Council of Constantinople had, in his view, abolished the spirit as a distinct reality, a later age would try to abolish the soul by means of a drug or vaccine. “Sound” people would treat any thought of soul or spirit as pathology. A medicament would be invented to treat the organism as early as possible - preferably at birth - so the body would never even form the idea that a soul and a spirit exist. Materialistic physicians would be given the task of driving souls out of humanity.

On 27th October he returned to the theme: spirits of darkness would inspire their human instruments to find a vaccine that, acting through the living body, would drive the inclination toward spirituality out of people while they were still young. Children would be vaccinated with a substance that made them “immune” to what materialists would call the foolishness of spiritual life. People would then believe only in the sense-perceptible physical world. In later remarks he also linked certain vaccinations (he mentioned smallpox in particular) with a loosening or “Ahrimanic” stiffening of the etheric body - the life-body in anthroposophical anatomy - especially in those already steeped in materialistic thinking.

Steiner was not an anti-vaxxer. He actually believed that some inoculations reduced infectious disease and said fanatical refusal in individual cases was not the anthroposophical path. His concern was different: that a purely material medicine, applied at scale and early in life, could condition the organism so that their inner life - conscience, spiritual perception, the sense of an “I” that is more than chemistry - would atrophy and eventually disappear altogether. The human being would remain clever, even technically brilliant, but spiritually vacant: an automaton whose etheric connection to the cosmos had been made unstable.

That is the theory. It is metaphysical, not laboratory science. Anthroposophy describes the human as physical body, etheric (life) body, astral (soul) body, and “I” or spirit. Anything that loosens or hardens those relationships, Steiner claimed, changes what a person can become.

Other modern speculations have circled similar ground from a biological angle. In 2004 geneticist Dean Hamer popularised the phrase “God gene” for variants of VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2), a gene involved in packaging dopamine, serotonin and other monoamines. Hamer suggested that certain alleles correlated with higher scores on self-transcendence - openness to mystical or spiritual experience. The claim was modest, poorly replicated, and widely criticised as reductionist. VMAT2 is a pump, not a soul-switch. Subsequent work has not established it as “the” gene for faith, and it’s been said that no vaccine or medicine exists to erase spirituality. After seeing some of the personality-changing after-effects of some of the Covid jabs, however, millions worldwide would now beg to differ.

A separate internet artifact - the so-called FunVax video - purports to show a briefing in which a vaccine against the “God gene” would be used to suppress religious fanaticism. It’s often claimed that the presenter is Bill Gates. But is may not be. Of course the usual mainstream-supporting fact-checkers and the Gates Foundation say it’s not Bill. Higher-resolution copies of the footage have apparently confirmed it is a hoax or promotional mockumentary. Gates has spoken about religion, morality and the ethics of gene editing but it’s been said that he’s never proposed vaccinating away spirituality.

So what’s this soul erasure theory all about? If we take Steiner’s view of the future seriously, the motive would be control through inner impoverishment. As with a fearful population, one that cannot conceive of soul or spirit is easier to manage as a collection of bodies and data. Conscience, meaning and resistance that arise from an inner life become harder to sustain. Some materialist or technocratic circles, in this reading, would prefer humans who are smart, productive, but spiritually mute - immune to the “madness” of asking what their purpose in life is or why they’re here. All that wondering could be viewed as a huge waste of time and energy.

If the stronger claim were true - that a specific medical intervention could detach the etheric body or silence the soul - the consequences would not stay with one generation. Children born into such a conditioned organism would inherit a narrower inner horizon. Culture, art, religion and the sense that a human being is more than an organism would thin. Future generations would still walk, calculate and consume but they would have less of what older languages called spirit. Humanity as a whole would become, in Steiner’s word, more automatic, more automated: efficient, perhaps, but less able to stand upright as a moral and spiritual being.

Despite many reports of people who’ve taken the Covid jabs changing physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, there have not yet been and official peer-reviewed studies carried out. An increasing number of anecdotal tales are coming to light but no clinical or neurological pattern has shown that mRNA or viral-vector shots remove souls, loosen etheric bodies or delete VMAT2 function in the way the meme implies.  Perhaps it’s something that needs further investigation. In the meantime, take a look at this - just one of several online discussions on the subject: https://x.com/jacquideevoy1/status/2093814282207031344?s=46)

You may also be interested in this article: https://jacquideevoy.substack.com/p/are-covid-jabs-causing-personality?r=mwfri&utm_medium=ios

The question the Steiner meme forces is older than any particular product: it causes us to ask what a human being actually is. If we are only matter, then talk of souls being “removed” can be described as poetry or put down to paranoia. If we humans are more than matter, then any large-scale intervention that treats the body as the whole of the person deserves scrutiny - not because a 1917 lecture predicted a specific 2021 injection, but because the reduction of the human to a manageable biological machine is a real temptation of the age.

The future of generations to come depends less on whether an injection “stole the soul” and more on whether we believe there’s a soul is there to take.

In a quiet living room in Elmira, New York, on an ordinary night in December 1963, an author named Jane Roberts suddenly spoke in a voice that was not her own. “I am Seth,” the voice declared. What followed was one of the most extensive and coherent bodies of channelled material of the twentieth century.

This article draws on a comprehensive documentary that gathers those teachings. The video (link at the end of the article) is narrated by the team behind the Spanish-language channel Saber y Sentido, whose measured, clear delivery guides viewers through hours of Seth’s words without drowning them in commentary. Their role is that of presenters, not originators. The voice you hear introducing the sessions belongs to them; the ideas themselves come from the Jane via an entity called Seth.

Seth described himself without pretension. He was not a god, an angel or a discarnate human spirit in the usual sense. He called himself an “energy personality essence” that had completed its cycle of physical incarnations and now existed in a dimension where time and space no longer constrained perception. His purpose, he said, was simple: to share what he had learned about the nature of reality, consciousness and creativity so that people still focused in physical form could remember their own multidimensional nature. “I am not separated from you,” he insisted. “We are all part of the same universal consciousness of All That Is.”

That last phrase is central. Seth refused to define God in the limited terms most religions use. ‘All That Is’ is the sum of every probability, the infinite ocean of potential from which every universe arises. It experiences itself through every one of its creations, including you. There is no distant judge sitting on a throne. There is only an ever-expanding consciousness that knows itself by becoming the countless forms it takes.

From this starting point the teachings unfold with startling consistency. Consciousness is not a by-product of the brain. It exists independently of matter and actually shapes it. Atoms possess their own awareness. Molecules know what they are doing. Cells choose to cooperate. A foetus already carries consciousness through its atoms before any personality fully enters. Physical reality, in Seth’s view, is a kind of magnificent, agreed-upon hallucination that we collectively maintain. We create it with our beliefs, our expectations and the vivid inner pictures we hold.

This is not abstract philosophy. Seth was practical. He told Jane and her husband Robert Butts that the body is a living symbol of the mind. Illness, vitality, even the shape of a face reflect the dominant inner attitudes. Change the beliefs and the body responds. Dreams are not random firings of neurons; they are the psyche’s nightly workshop, where we explore probable events, communicate with other aspects of ourselves and even practise skills we will later use in waking life. Time, he said, is simultaneous. Past, present and future exist at once. Versions of you are living out every choice you did not make in this particular stream of experience. Intuition and sudden hunches are often messages from those other selves.

Reincarnation, in this framework, is not a linear ladder of punishment and reward. It is more like an artist working on several canvasses at the same time. Each life is chosen for the particular lessons and creative opportunities it offers. Between lives the personality reviews, plans and selects the next set of circumstances with far greater awareness than we usually possess while incarnate. Death itself is simply a change of focus, not an ending.

The documentary does not shy away from the strangeness of the source. Jane Roberts was an ordinary woman with no prior interest in the occult. She and Rob recorded thousands of sessions over two decades. Rob sat with a notepad; Jane went into trance and Seth spoke. The resulting books - Seth Speaks, The Nature of Personal Reality and many others - have sold millions of copies and influenced everyone from New Age seekers to physicists curious about the observer effect. Critics have called it elaborate self-delusion. Supporters point to the internal consistency, the predictive accuracy of certain statements and the sheer volume of material produced while Jane was fully conscious of what was happening yet unable to produce it in her normal state.

What makes the teachings linger is their refusal to demand belief. Seth repeatedly told his listeners they did not have to accept a single word. Test the ideas, he said. Watch how your thoughts colour the events that follow. Notice how a shift in expectation alters the “facts” that appear. The universe, he claimed, is far more malleable than we have been taught. We are not victims of circumstance; we are co-creators who have forgotten how to use the tools.

In an age that feels increasingly deterministic - genetics, algorithms, official narratives - Seth’s message lands like a quiet rebellion. You are not a machine running a pre-written programme. You are a point of awareness that chose this particular adventure and you retain the power to rewrite the script. The body you inhabit, the relationships you attract, even the historical moment you find yourself in are all expressions of inner decisions made at a level most of us rarely visit while awake.

The documentary ends where it began: with Jane’s ordinary living room and an extraordinary voice. Whether that voice belonged to a sophisticated aspect of Jane’s own psyche or to an independent intelligence is a question each viewer must answer for themselves. What cannot be denied is the coherence and the invitation. Seth did not ask for worship. He asked for curiosity. He asked people to look again at the world they think they know and to notice who is looking.

That invitation remains open. The sessions stopped when Jane died in 1984, but the books and the recordings continue to circulate. In a time when so many feel powerless, the idea that consciousness itself is the primary force - and that each of us participates in it - still has the power to startle, to comfort and, occasionally, to set someone free.

Here’s the video that inspired this article: https://youtu.be/dTcEbbkXVWQ?is=ksaE5lXFwhGvfBIJ

```​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Shedding can, allegedly, only occur with live attenuated vaccines - those that are said to contain a deliberately weakened but still replicating form of a virus. Common examples include the nasal-spray flu vaccine (LAIV), rotavirus vaccine, varicella (chickenpox) vaccine and the oral polio vaccine.

Inactivated vaccines, protein-subunit vaccines, viral-vector vaccines and mRNA vaccines contain no live virus. They cannot replicate and therefore cannot be shed. The official narrative states that zero Covid jabs were capable of shedding, despite Pfizer documents alluding to it and advising anyone who took it to stay away from vulnerable people for a substantial period of time. The official take on that is that what was revealed in the Pfizer documents (which the Pharma giant wanted to keep hidden for 75 years but that they were forced to disclose) is just standard trial-speak and that all new medical interventions and medicines would include the same warnings. OK…

The official story is that claims of mRNA or spike protein “shedding” onto other people and causing illness as a result have no established biological mechanism and no supporting evidence. Many experts dispute this however.

It’s been established by some scientists that when a live attenuated vaccine is used, shedding is not the same as transmission, and transmission is rarely the same as illness. The attenuated strains have apparently been selected or engineered to replicate poorly in healthy human tissues. We’re reassured by the so-called experts that when the ‘virus’ does exit the body, the quantity is usually low, the duration short, and the material still weakened - so healthy contacts almost never become sick. (Almost never… so not never then.) This is not what many people believe, nor is it what they’ve experienced.

We’ve been told that getting ill from shedding requires the material to reach you in sufficient quantity to successfully infect you and overcomes your own defences. It’s said - mainly be the big pharmaceutical companies themselves - that the following well-documented host factors in the potential “shedee” make illness uncommon:

Pre-activated mucosal innate immunity. In the nose, throat or gut, elevated baseline interferon signalling and interferon-stimulated genes create a restrictive environment. People who already have upregulated antiviral pathways - often because of a recent asymptomatic respiratory virus or other local immune activity - are far less likely to allow any attenuated vaccine virus to take hold. Local immune cells (macrophages, neutrophils, eosinophils) further contribute to this barrier.

Prior adaptive immunity. Antibodies and memory T and B cells from earlier infection or vaccination can neutralise the attenuated virus before it expands. Those with recent or repeated exposure to related wild-type viruses or prior doses of the same or similar vaccines, typically clear any incoming material quickly. Maternal antibodies in infants can provide the same protection.

Age and cumulative exposure. Adults and older children generally have more previous encounters with related viruses than young children, resulting in stronger baseline resistance. Young children may be more susceptible simply because they have fewer prior exposures.

Individual biological variation. Genetics influencing interferon pathways, overall immune competence, mucosal microbiome composition and even factors such as histo-blood group antigens (relevant for rotavirus) create person-to-person differences. In a healthy immune system the attenuated virus is already operating near the edge of its replication capacity; modest additional restriction is often enough to prevent productive infection and illness.

The result across clinical studies is that a substantial fraction of healthy contacts of people who received live attenuated vaccines show no detectable infection or only transient, asymptomatic detection - and the great majority never become ill. And it’s surmised that the same defences that limit disease from the vaccine in the recipient frequently prevent illness in those around them as well. This doesn’t make sense to the experts who believe that no vaccine has ever been proven to be effective in the first place and that injecting people with pathogens is a dangerous game to play.

If a person close to you has received an mRNA, inactivated or protein-based vaccine, it’s said that there is nothing that can be shed and that there’s no way you can get ill from vaccine-virus shedding.

If they received a live attenuated vaccine, it’s said that any material released was so limited in quantity, duration and virulence that it poses no risk to a healthy person. Immunocompromised individuals are apparently a special case, however, as their reduced ability to limit replication raises concern, which is why live vaccines are not given to them and why caution is advised around recent recipients, but Big Pharma insists that for the general population the risk of becoming ill remains low.

So are you immune to getting ill from shedding? For the great majority of modern vaccines, the answer is probably yes - because the vaccine itself has nothing that can be shed. For the minority of live attenuated vaccines, many people still end up functionally immune to illness thanks to innate priming, prior immunity, age and ordinary biological variation.

Understanding the actual biology removes the drama and leaves a clearer picture: vaccine shedding is real, for sure, but limited and usually inconsequential for most healthy people, and far from universal in its ability to cause illness in those exposed. Other people’s lived experience - and recent research - says otherwise.

*In this article, the word ‘vaccine’ pertains to any injection including mRNA technologies that are claim to inoculate against disease.

**I’ve put the word ‘virus’ in inverted commas because I believe a virus isn’t what we’re told it is and that what’s being generally referred to as a virus should actually be called something else.

Yet already the predictable chorus has started. People - especially those desperate to avoid any awkward questions about the toxic Covid jabs and their possible role in her recent decline - are insisting she simply “died of old age.” It’s the comforting, tidy phrase wheeled out whenever a famous face (or anyone we know) over a certain age leaves us and the narrative must stay clean.

This is a topic I’ve argued regularly: NO ONE DIES OF OLD AGE.

People can die of health issues that become more common or more dangerous as the years pass. They do not die of a number. A chronological age is not a disease. Your body has no idea how many birthdays you’ve had. It only knows whether it is functioning well or whether it is toxic, overloaded, inflamed, depleted or under attack.

People generally die of two things: toxicity or their lives being deliberately or accidentally ended.

Toxicity builds from many sources - chronic stress, ultra-processed food, lack of movement, poor sleep, breathing polluted air, swallowing or injecting chemical poisons, electromagnetic overload, unresolved trauma and the cumulative burden of modern living. Toxicity leads to disease: heart failure, strokes, organ collapse, cancer, immune dysregulation. When the final cascade hits an older body that has less reserve, the death certificate may list the immediate failure while the real drivers go unexamined.

Being killed - whether by murder, medical intervention disguised as ‘care’, suicide or accident - is a separate category. The number of years lived has no magical bearing on either pathway.

Medical literature and official guidance have long recognised this. In the United States, “old age” was removed as an acceptable standalone cause of death decades ago; death certificates require a specific disease or condition. Autopsy studies repeatedly show that even among centenarians described as “healthy,” zero die of ageing itself. They die of identifiable organ failures - overwhelmingly cardiovascular events, respiratory failure or other concrete pathology.

A 2025 review of autopsy data across humans and animals, led by researchers at the German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases and reported widely, found the same pattern: ageing raises risk but specific diseases pull that final trigger. Heart attacks, cardiopulmonary failure and strokes dominate. None of the examined centenarians died of “old age.”

In the UK, official guidance from the Office for National Statistics and death certification rules is clear: “old age” or “senility” should only be used as the sole cause in very limited circumstances - after long personal care, observed gradual decline with no identifiable disease, and certainty that no coroner referral is needed. Even then it is discouraged because it provides no useful information. Doctors are told to record the actual conditions.

US sources echo this. The CDC has recommended against vague terms like “died of old age” or “natural causes” because they hold limited medical value. Experts including physicians at the University of California, San Francisco state plainly: nobody ever actually dies of “old age.” There are always other pre-existing or new diseases.

Live Science and other outlets have long summarised the consensus: people die from injury or disease. Ageing makes cells less efficient at repair and defence, so the same insult that a younger body shrugs off can become fatal. But the killer is still the disease or the injury, not the birthday count.

So when the media and the jab-apologists reach for “old age” to explain Dolly Parton’s death, they are not offering medical clarity. They are offering a convenient story that they hope stops further questions. Toxicity -whether from lifestyle, environmental poisons, medical interventions or the cumulative load of modern life - does not care how many years you have lived. It only cares whether your body can still clear the toxic overload.

A number cannot kill you. Your body does not know its age. It only knows if it is healthy or toxic.

Something caused Dolly’s death. But, despite her recently becoming an octogenarian, it wasn’t old age.

```​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Many people erroneously trust politicians, believe they’ll do what they say they’re going to do and are constantly surprised and disappointed every time they’re let down.

There is no criminal offence in UK law that stops ministers, civil servants or official spokespeople from deliberately lying to the nation. Spin, half-truths, “sexed-up” dossiers and straight-up falsehoods have been part of the political toolkit for decades - and the law has shrugged its shoulders.

The Ministerial Code demands that ministers tell the truth to Parliament. Knowingly mislead the House and you’re expected to resign. But that is a political convention, not a criminal matter. Statements made inside the Commons are protected by privilege. Outside those walls, when addressing the public on television, in press releases or via the BBC, the rules go soft. A lie that isn’t fraud, defamation or a narrow election offence about a candidate’s personal character simply isn’t a crime.

This is why the Iraq “dodgy dossier,” countless Covid U-turns and endless statistical gymnastics have rarely resulted in anyone in handcuffs. The system is designed that way.

Now, under the banner of the so-called “Hillsborough Law” - the Public Office (Accountability) Bill - politicians are suddenly talking about creating a new offence of “misleading the public.” It would apply only to the most serious, “seriously improper” cases involving significant harm - the kind of institutional cover-ups that scarred Hillsborough and Grenfell. Everyday political propaganda and agenda-pushing would still sail through.

Don’t be fooled. A government that has spent years expanding speech controls on the rest of us is not suddenly discovering a passion for honesty. The proposed law carefully excludes statements made in Parliament and leaves plenty of wriggle room. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue to face the full force of communications offences, Online Safety Act powers and “hate” speech rules for far less.

The truth remains uncomfortable: for years the British state has operated under a quiet understanding that it can shape the narrative, push its preferred story and, when necessary, lie to the people it claims to serve - without fear of the criminal courts.

That is not an accident. It is the system working exactly as intended. To benefit ‘them’, not us. To end on an old joke…

Q: How do you know when a politician is lying? A: His lips are moving.