The Expose News

Vera Sharav’s new book, ‘Never Again Is Now Global: The Dangers of a One-World Final Solution’, is due to be released next month.

The book argues that the world is moving toward a "new era of barbarism" driven by layered deceptions and the erosion of individual autonomy.

It has been described as a "hard-hitting, painstakingly researched, historical perspective" that challenges conventional narratives regarding global power structures.

Vera Sharav is a human rights activist and the founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (“AHRP”). 

She is a Holocaust survivor. At 3.5 years old, she, along with her family, was herded into a Nazi concentration camp. She survived the Holocaust after her father died of typhus in the camp, and her mother saved her life by claiming she was an orphan and sending her away from the camp.  So, when Sharav discusses the “final solution,” she is drawing on her personal experience.

Her new book regarding the dangers of a “one-world final solution” is scheduled for publication on 13 August 2026.  The following is a description of the book as published by Children's Health Defense.

Never Again Is Now Global: The Dangers of a One-World Final Solution

A hard-hitting, painstakingly researched, historical perspective that leads us to the layered deceptions of our times. ​ ‘Never Again Is Now Global’ was inspired by Vera Sharav’s acclaimed five-part documentary series of the same name. This eye-opening and information-shattering book exposes a chilling web of historical and contemporary forces, arguing that the world is on a dangerous trajectory toward a new era of barbarism. From the unlearned lessons of fascism’s rise to the alleged weaponisation of healthcare and the manipulation of global narratives surrounding pandemics, this book challenges conventional wisdom and presents a starkly different view of power structures and their impact on humanity.

Contributors explore a range of interconnected topics, including:

• The historical roots of global power structures: Examining the Anglo-American influence in the rise of fascism and the role of American bankers and corporations in the Holocaust.

• Modern mechanisms of control: Unveiling alleged corporate takeovers, financial laundering schemes, and the insidious tactics of propaganda.

• The purported weaponisation of public health: Critically analysing the covid-19 pandemic, questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and exposing alleged connections to surveillance and control.

• The erosion of individual freedoms: Investigating the pandemic’s impact on faith, religion, and autonomy, and sounding the alarm about the manipulation of culture and reality through algorithmic control.

This painstakingly researched, historically grounded, multi-faceted approach reveals multiple underlying, layered deceptions and objectives of the Covid Operation and beyond. Featuring essays from a diverse group of historians, doctors, scientists, researchers, activists and analysts from around the world, Never Again is Now Global presents a controversial and provocative perspective, urging readers to critically examine the forces shaping our world and to resist the descent into what it deems a new era of global tyranny. It is a passionate call to awareness and action.

Whitney’s daughter told her there was a “sex room” at school run by the older boys.

“I told the school about it, but they completely shut it down and said she was lying,” Whitney said.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Whitney’s testimony.  Whitney is not her real name. “Some of the witnesses have to remain anonymous for their own safety,” the report says.  You can read the full report HERE

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report ‘Whitney’

‘Whitney’ grew up in a vulnerable household. Her mother suffered from severe mental health issues, and her father was absent from her life.

She was first groomed and sexually abused at the age of 15 by two adult Pakistani brothers. One of the brothers, Whitney recalls, acted as a boyfriend figure. Both brothers would regularly take her to a flat in Birmingham, supply her with alcohol, and in her words she would “have sex with them.”

Their interactions with Whitney soon turned violent. They began beating her and, on one occasion, held a hot iron to her face. Whitney recalls that the brothers stopped contacting her after they arrived at her house to collect her and found all of her uncles sitting on the wall outside. After that incident, they never came back. She cannot remember exactly how or why her uncles were there, but she believes her mother had asked them to intervene.

Many years later, Whitney’s daughter began self-harming at age eleven and even attempted suicide. Her phone contained sexually explicit messages. Whitney’s daughter told her there was a “sex room” at school run by the older boys. Deeply concerned for her daughter, Whitney contacted social services. They offered little support beyond talking through the problems. In one instance, social services accidentally sent her six other children’s case files instead of her daughter’s, which left her deeply distrustful of their ability to help.

Whitney’s daughter was coerced into sending a sexual image, which was then circulated across multiple schools, the local community, and eventually the internet. This led to her receiving unwanted attention from adult men of various ethnicities and from multiple countries. From that point on, Whitney’s daughter began going missing regularly. These disappearances were directly linked to sexual demands and exploitation by older boys and adult men.

She was threatened with violence if she contacted the police and sometimes returned home with items of clothing missing. Whitney repeatedly reported her concerns to the police and social services, clearly stating that she believed her daughter was being sexually exploited. Police responses were often delayed, statements were not taken, and investigations were closed without further action. Social services refused to relocate the family, downgraded the risk level, and eventually closed the case despite ongoing exploitation.

The UN’s latest attack on economic growth comes wrapped in moral language. Its global initiatives are marketed as justice through economic restraint, while its advocates promise less poverty, greater equality and a safer climate.

In reality, their policies would deliver less production, less investment and fewer opportunities. That is managed decline, not prosperity. It will make all societies poorer, Vance Ginn warns.

The Poverty of the UN’s Degrowth Agenda

By Vance Ginn, as published by The Daily Economy on 26 June 2026

The latest attack on economic growth comes wrapped in moral language. Its advocates promise less poverty, greater equality and a safer climate. Their policies would deliver less production, less investment and fewer opportunities. That is managed decline, not prosperity.

The UN-backed ‘Roadmap for Eradicating Poverty Beyond Growth’ proposes 80 policies meant to reduce society’s dependence on growth. A separate ‘Global Justice Report’, led by Thomas Piketty and researchers at the World Inequality Lab, puts numbers behind this vision.

The reports differ, but they share the same central mistake. They treat growth as an obstacle to justice rather than the force that has lifted billions of people.

What Degrowth Would Mean

The Piketty-led model would push rich countries toward output of roughly €60,000 per person, or about $69,000, by 2100. It would hold annual per-person growth in wealthy regions near zero. That figure requires context.

US GDP per capita was about $89,962 in 2025. The proposed level is about $21,000 lower, or roughly 23 per cent below current American output per person. GDP per capita is not the same as a worker’s salary. It measures the total value produced in the economy divided by the population. For another comparison, personal income per capita was running near $77,800 in early 2026.

Not content to slow some distant, future excess, the plan envisions an America that produces less than we do today. The model would also cut annual work hours by more than half, shifting labour away from construction and manufacturing. As Veronique de Rugy notes, “a comprehensive programme for global managed decline … making everyone poorer” isn’t just a likely forecast - it’s the plan’s whole design.

But building fewer homes will not solve a housing shortage. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Restricting work will not help families trying to move ahead.

Growth Is Human Progress

Economic growth is not just a line on a government chart. It is the process through which people create more value from limited resources. That process gives us better medicine. It makes food easier to afford. It allows workers to earn more while spending fewer hours producing the same goods.

Productivity is the engine of rising living standards. When a worker produces more value per hour, wages and leisure can rise together. Degrowth reverses this process, reducing production and hoping people will enjoy the loss. 

Emile Phaneuf and Christopher Lingle put the stakes plainly in ‘Degrowth Kills People—Yes, Literally’. Wealthier societies are healthier, safer and better able to survive crises. Scarcity carries a human cost.

The Poverty Record Is Clear

The strongest argument against degrowth is what growth has already accomplished. Around 60 per cent of the world lived in extreme poverty in 1950. By 1990, the share was about 40 per cent. The World Bank now estimates that it fell to 10.4 per cent in 2024 and could fall to 10 per cent in 2026.

The number of people in extreme poverty also fell sharply, even as the world’s population grew. Under the World Bank’s updated $3-per-day standard, about 847 million people remained in extreme poverty in 2024. That is still far too many. But the direction matters.

Since 1990, roughly 1.5 billion people have escaped extreme poverty. Much of that progress occurred in Asia as countries expanded trade, welcomed investment and allowed more private enterprise. They did not become wealthier by closing factories.

The World Bank also finds that poverty reduction accelerated after 1990. The average decline doubled from about half a percentage point per year before 1990 to roughly one point annually afterwards. That is what economic liberalisation made possible.

Poverty Is Not Inequality

Degrowth advocates often move between poverty and inequality as though they mean the same thing. They do not.

A poor family does not gain because a wealthy family loses money. A worker is not better off because a factory closes and makes an inequality chart look more balanced. Making fewer goods will not make necessities more affordable. Equality achieved by destroying wealth is shared deprivation.

As I have argued at American Institute for Economic Research (“AIER”), the better question is why government policy blocks people from earning, investing and moving upward. The goal should be to expand opportunity, not punish success. Growth does not guarantee that every outcome is equal. It does create more room for people to improve their lives. Stagnation makes mobility harder.

The Plan Undermines Itself

The Piketty proposal depends on a global fund financed by taxes on income and wealth. Yet it would weaken the economies expected to finance that fund. It also assumes poorer countries can keep growing while rich countries consume and invest less. That does not add up.

Developing countries need capital. They also need customers. If the United States and Europe stagnate, both will become scarcer. A development plan cannot succeed by weakening the world’s largest sources of investment and demand.

Degrowth also creates a political problem. Someone must decide how much people may work. Someone must choose which industries shrink and which goods are no longer produced. Those decisions will not remain inside an academic model.

Markets coordinate millions of choices through prices and voluntary exchange. No global commission has enough knowledge to replace that process. Managed scarcity eventually requires managed lives.

Prosperity Is the Better Path

Rejecting degrowth does not mean ignoring pollution or other real harms. Property rights matter. So does accountability. Innovation can reduce environmental damage without forcing society backwards.

As Joakim Book explained in his review of ‘The Capitalist Manifesto’, prosperous societies have more resources to adapt and invest in cleaner technology. Poor societies must focus on survival. The world’s poorest people do not need comfortable academics deciding they have reached “enough.” They need the freedom to work, save, invest and build.

Degrowth is a luxury belief because its advocates already enjoy the abundance they would restrict. Poverty cannot be overcome by rationing scarcity. It is overcome by economic freedom that lets people create abundance.

About the Author

Vance Ginn, PhD, is founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC, based near Austin, Texas, and an Associate Research Fellow with AIER. He is also a staff economist at Americans for Tax Reform, and formerly chief economist at Texas Public Policy Foundation, Pelican Institute for Public Policy, and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, June 2019 to May 2020.

New Zealand journalist Ian Wishart has filed two High Court appeals challenging broadcasters’ claims about climate change.

“The cases concern reports describing a Dunedin rainfall event as the city’s 'wettest day in over a century' and Hamilton as experiencing its 'hottest days' during a heatwave. Wishart argues historical records do not support those claims,” a GiveALittle page to raise funds for the legal action says.

If you believe corporate media should be held to account for accurate, honest, impartial reporting, please support Wishart’s legal case against inaccurate climate reporting.

Ian Wishart is a New Zealand journalist, author and publisher widely recognised for his role as the editor of Investigate magazine and founder of Howling at the Moon publishing, which has published many of Wishart’s books.

He rose to prominence in the 1990s as the lead reporter on the Winebox Affair, an investigation into corporate fraud and tax evasion that led to a Royal Commission of Inquiry and a landmark television documentary.

And now, Wishart is taking on the false climate change narrative being disseminated by New Zealand’s corporate media. 

Help Ian Wishart Bust The Bias In Climate Reporting

The following, excepting the related articles at the end, is reproduced from Ian Wishart’s GiveALittle fundraising page.

Ian Wishart has filed two High Court appeals to clarify broadcasters’ responsibility to verify claims about climate and extreme weather.

The cases concern reports describing a Dunedin rainfall event as the city’s “wettest day in over a century” and Hamilton as experiencing its “hottest days” during a heatwave. Wishart argues historical records do not support those claims.

These claims are not about whether climate change is real, but whether broadcasters should check factual claims, accurately represent the evidence and correct reports when challenged.

The broadcasters and the Broadcasting Standards Authority argue media organisations should be able to rely on expert bodies without independently checking the underlying facts. Wishart’s appeals will test that position.

We are seeking $35,000 to help him fight these cases. Ian is representing himself, so the funds will not pay his personal legal fees. They will support court and related costs.

The cost breakdown:

- Costs exposure of up to $12,000 from the completed broadcast standards appeal. - Costs exposure of up to $12,000 from the second appeal. - $5,764 in costs from the interlocutory hearing.

“This appeal is not putting climate change on trial. It is putting climate change reportage on trial and, as a consequence, the broadcasting regulator.”

If you believe facts still matter in news reporting, please donate and share.

Donate to hold broadcasters accountable.

Use of funds

Legal and court fees. Any funds remaining after the cases are resolved will support public-interest legal challenges. The use of those funds will be publicly disclosed.

Click HERE to donate to Wishart’s GiveALittle Page

Related articles from the Centrist:

- RNZ knew its story was wrong, didn’t tell the Herald and TVNZ - State Broadcaster in climate reporting scandal: Hides evidence of massive heatwave that dwarfs recent ‘hottest years’ - And media bosses wonder why no one trusts ‘The News’ anymore?

Dr. David Cartland will soon be offering a service advising on care received from the NHS, whether the advice being sought is for potential legal action, peace of mind or any other reason.

The advice could be for “clinical negligence …  medical translation of what going on whether reasonable level of care” from the NHS, he said.

This service will be in addition to the health coaching that he already offers.

For years, the UK medical and media establishment has persecuted Dr. David Cartland for daring to question and speak out during the fraudulent covid pandemic about restrictions imposed on populations to “flatten the curve” and the unsafe and ineffective vaccine.

He has written a book about his experience as a doctor who spoke out against the covid scamdemic. 

The title of the book is ‘Do No Harm’ and is described as the “diaries of a ‘vaccinated’ anti-vaxxer.” 

“This book is a testament to the unfailing conscience of a doctor whose compassion and concern for his patients shine through in every chapter,” one of the book’s readers commented.

You can purchase a copy of the book HERE.

Dr. Cartland had worked for 17 years across various primary care roles, including as a National Health Service (“NHS”) general practitioner (“GP”) and in urgent care services before the GMC struck him off the medical register in June 2025.

“David Cartland has not only been struck off from the General Medical Council (GMC) registers, meaning he can no longer practice medicine anywhere in the UK, but his name has now been removed from the medical register,” Cornwall Live gleefully and maliciously proclaimed.

Being struck off means he is no longer permitted to prescribe medication, formally diagnose a condition or practice as a registered medical professional in the UK. Although officially he is no longer a doctor, and so some might view the “Dr.” prefix as inappropriate, we will refer to him as Dr. as he represents what a doctor should be and is more of a doctor than many who are currently registered with the GMC.

Since the establishment has made it impossible for him to practise, Dr. Cartland has been practising as a private health coach and advisor.  He offers consultations that blend allopathic and naturopathic approaches.

During this time, people have approached him and requested advice concerning potential legal challenges to the “care” that they, their family or friends have received from the NHS. 

A couple of weeks ago, he published a short video to explain.

The advice being sought was “not always clinical negligence. Often it would just be almost medical translation of what was going on and whether it was reasonable level of care,” he said.

He has decided to add this service to his health coaching services sometime in the coming weeks for those who are seeking such advice.  He will be a doctor you can turn to when you feel other doctors are lying to you. In the meantime, you can book an appointment with Dr. Cartland for health coaching advice HERE.

In 2019, Greater Manchester Police began Operation Hexagon.  As the Mayor of Manchester with Police and Crime Commissioner functions, the Operation came under the oversight of Andy Burnham.

They led the public to believe Operation Hexagon was designed to investigate allegations of rape gang crimes in Oldham.  However, the wording was deliberately vague. 

The actual purpose of Operation Hexagon was to investigate people exposing the Muslim rape gangs and those attempting to cover-up these crimes. 

In other words, Operation Hexagon was designed not to target criminals but to silence whistle-blowers and others who spoke about the rape gangs and their crimes.

Operation Hexagon was a joint investigation between Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) and Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.  It ran from September 2019 to February 2022.  The operation fell under the oversight of Andy Burnham, then Mayor of Greater Manchester and Police and Crime Commissioner.

A Freedom of Information Act request to GMP asked what the purpose and objectives of Operation Hexagon were.  In response, GMP said in March 2026, “This information is already available in the public domain via a google search. operation hexagon - Google Search.” 

The last phrase, “operation hexagon - Google Search,” is highlighted in blue as if it contained a hyperlink.  It doesn’t.  

GMP’s website has no information on the operation, and little to no information about Operation Hexagon is returned in an internet search.  In short, an internet search returns some requests made under the Freedom of Information Act (requests contain more information than the responses), articles published by Neil Wilby Media, articles and social media posts published by Raja Miah, an article published by Manchester Evening News in December 2020 and an article published by the Oldham Times in July 2021.

You can find some of the Freedom of Information Act requests on the ‘What do They Know’ website HERE. 

The Manchester Evening News reported: “In November last year Oldham council and the Oldham Safeguarding Partnership commissioned a review from the Mayor of Greater Manchester into allegations circulating online about abuse in the borough. These chiefly concern ‘shisha bars, taxi companies and children’s homes’, according to the terms of reference for the investigation.”

Unfortunately, as is the norm with corporate media, the Manchester Evening News did not provide sources or source links.  So, we are unable to read the terms of reference being referred to for ourselves, or who approved or published it.

Taking the outlet at its word, officially, Operation Hexagon was designed to investigate allegations of child sexual exploitation circulating on social media in Oldham.

 “GMP has established Operation Hexagon under the command of Assistant Chief Constable Nick Bailey as gold commander to work with review into the historic allegations,” the Manchester Evening News said.

We have previously published articles about Oldham’s Independent Assurance Review, read: ‘Angela Rayner: When election fraud meets Muslim rape gang cover-up’ and ‘Andy Burnham and the truth about Britain’s Muslim rape gang investigations’.

The Manchester Evening News does not indicate when the terms of reference referred to in its article were published.  This is important because they may have changed over time.  In the same article, the outlet quoted Assistant Chief Constable Nick Bailey as saying, “The GMP investigations have not been limited by parameters and have increased throughout the duration of our enquiries.”

When asked about the scope of Operation Hexagon at a public meeting of Oldham Council in July 2022, the Leader of the Council replied, “Operation Hexagon was a Greater Manchester Police initiative examining the community impact of historic Child Sexual Exploitation being made online. Oldham Council supports this initiative by Greater Manchester Police.”

“Most people … would naturally assume that Operation Hexagon was the name for Greater Manchester Police's investigation into in Oldham,” Raja Miah said.  “It wasn’t.”

It was a police operation to target whistle-blowers and others who were exposing the crimes and the cover-up of child sexual exploitation by “grooming gangs,” aka Muslim rape gangs.  It was the “allegations circulating online” made by whistle-blowers and others which GMP was investigating under Operation Hexagon.  Instead of targeting the criminals, the police were targeting those who spoke about the criminals and their crimes.  Raja Miah was one of those which Operation Hexagon targeted.

Why Will They Not Ask Andy Burnham About Operation Hexagon?

By Raja Miah, as published on Red Wall & the Rabble on 30 June 2026

There is a police operation Greater Manchester Police will not name. The press will not name it either. It has a name. Operation Hexagon. This clandestine operation was built to hunt the people who exposed the cover-up of the gang rape of little white girls in Oldham. The man who held authority over it is walking towards Downing Street.

Operation Hexagon: They Built It To Hunt The Whistleblowers, Not The Abusers

Operation Hexagon was a joint enterprise between Greater Manchester Police, Oldham Council and Labour Party politicians. The Pakistani Rape Gangs were never its target. Neither were the men who shielded them. The machinery was aimed at the whistle-blowers and at the ordinary people who dared to ask how children were dragged into cars outside school gates and taken away to be gang raped and trafficked in Oldham.

Read that back slowly. A police force, a council and a political party, working in concert, turned on the citizens who demanded accountability. The abusers were left untouched. The people exposing them were hauled before the inquisition, their lives torn apart in search of any shred to silence them.

I can speak to Hexagon because Hexagon came for me. Corrupt police officers were sent to build cases against me that had no foundation. They repeatedly dawn raided my house. The council funded local media, then printed lies about me. Pakistani gangsters and Islamists, all with direct connections with Labour politicians, coordinated with the local press, then printed my photograph and published my home address, portraying me as a paedophile.

Read: Man, 48, arrested in connection with GMP's Operation Hexagon, Oldham Times, 23 July 2021

It did not stop there. The Crown Prosecution Service was turned into an instrument for manufacturing evidence to put me in the dock. Every charge collapsed. Every allegation was dismissed.

That is what an official police operation was made into. A machine for assembling false cases against a man whose only offence was refusing to look away while children were raped.

The Authority Ran Straight To Andy Burnham

Hexagon did not run in a vacuum. It ran under a chain of command, and that chain ends at Andy Burnham.

As Mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham holds the powers of the Police and Crime Commissioner. He has held authority over Greater Manchester Police since 2017. Oldham is the epicentre of the scandal and the focus of Hexagon, and Oldham sits inside his remit. An operation of this kind, run in his force, in his region, against the critics of a cover-up, does not happen beyond the reach of the man who commands the force.

He has never answered for it. He stood in election after election and said nothing. The silence of the man who held the authority is itself the answer.

They Buried The Whole Thing

You have not read about Operation Hexagon in your newspaper. That is by design.

Freedom of Information requests are refused with practised ease. The press that rushes to report every other case of police misconduct keeps its distance from this one. An operation confirmed to exist is reported as though it never happened. The blackout is the cover up that guards the cover up.

The Man Who Oversaw It Is Walking Into Downing Street

Here is why this matters now beyond anything it mattered before. Andy Burnham is on the road to Number 10. The man who held authority over a police operation aimed at the whistle-blowers of a child rape scandal is about to become the most powerful figure in the country.

Operation Hexagon should have finished his career. It has been allowed to sit as a footnote that no one in Westminster and no one in the press will read aloud.

Which Is Why It Is Left To Us

Imagine this, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom dragged kicking and screaming in front of a national inquiry into the cover-up of the Pakistani Rape Gangs, where he is forced to testify under oath and defend his own actions.

You don't have to imagine it. You just need to help me make it happen.

For 8 years, I've exposed how politicians and police covered up the gang rape of working-class white girls by Pakistani grooming gangs. I, with the support of the people of Oldham, led the campaign that forced the National Inquiry. Now, with your help, we will force this inquiry to a place it does not want to go.

As the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham fronted a series of assurance reviews of which one was in my hometown of Oldham. It was a cover-up of a cover-up. It tried to bury the truth. Don't believe me? Ask Maggie Oliver. Even she has come to the same conclusion.

Despite Burnham's efforts to help hide what took place, we forced a national inquiry. Whilst previously defending the robustness of his now exposed cover-up, Burnham is now trying his best to rewrite the truth of what he really did.

Unfortunately, as of yet, the national inquiry will not investigate Burnham or his actions, and his deceit will go unchallenged. We hope to change this before the investigation starts in Oldham.

Once Burnham is in Downing Street, the pressure to protect him will be immense. The institutions that failed these girls will try everything possible not to hold a Prime Minister accountable. Much of the press will look away, as always. This is why it is up to us to carry the truth.

Which is why I'm turning this community of readers into something more than what I can manage on my own. We need to grow and become an independent investigative outlet with:

- A professional website to reach larger audiences. - Video editing to make this work accessible to millions. - Research support so no lead goes cold. - In-person events to train people. - Resources to gather evidence and report from failed communities.

Before Burnham reaches Number 10, Red Wall & the Rabble needs 2,000 more paid subscribers to help grow and become more than a one-man operation. With your help, we can do in towns and cities across the country what we have done in Oldham.

Should we succeed, politicians will go to prison. It is as simple as that. Surely, on this prospect alone, it is worth your support.

The BBC claims that it has not publicised the findings of The Rape Gang Inquiry because “complex choices” about what to report on have to be made.

However, “the BBC were very quick to cover malicious complaints against our inquiry, in an attempt to smear our efforts,” Rupert Lowe MP said.

Today, the story broke about a Muslim rape gang ringleader, who was convicted of 30 child rapes, who “cannot be deported” despite being stripped of his British citizenship - thanks to a rule in the Immigration Act 1971.  Instead, this child rapist will be let loose into the British community.

It's not only legislation which is protecting the perpetrators and putting the community at risk. 

Today, Rupert Lowe, a Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Restore Britain, revealed evidence of the protection the BBC affords Muslim rape gangs.

The BBC has not reported on the findings of the independent Rape Gang Inquiry because, the BBC says, “complex choices” have to be made for editorial and practical reasons.

You can read the BBC’s excuses HERE.

The following is a tweet posted by Mr. Lowe, commenting on the BBC’s explanation.

The BBC has issued an official explanation on why it has failed to cover our rape gang inquiry.

“Complex choices” are made for editorial and practical reasons. These choices “should not be taken as indicative of bias.” Their words.

But the BBC were very quick to cover malicious complaints against our inquiry, in an attempt to smear our efforts. They were then forced to later apologise for how they covered the story.

So, either the inquiry is worth reporting on, or it's not. They can't pick and choose.

We're told “complex choices” are made, meaning that efforts to uncover the industrial rape of young girls is not near the top of list.

Let's take a look at a few stories on the main BBC news page, right now...

- 'Osaka pays 'love and respect to Japan' in Wimbledon kimono' - 'Why £15 durians are being sold at half price - or given away for free' - 'We had packed lunches every day for 10 years and retired at 40'

Are these stories more important than the rape gang inquiry? I think not.

You cannot hate the BBC enough. I expect no fair coverage from them; I've stopped expecting it. But the BBC is funded by the British people. Their continued suppression of our inquiry is a disgrace.

When it comes to protecting Muslim rapists, the BBC has form.  A Twitter (now X) user responded to Mr. Lowe’s tweet with the following:

https://twitter.com/EndMassMigrate/status/2071830001737990287

The article being referred to above was published by The Telegraph in March 2024.

Omar Badreddin, a Syrian refugee, was featured in the BBC's 2016 Newsnight documentary titled ‘To Hell and Back: The Story of a Syrian Family Given Refuge in the UK’.

The documentary, presented by Katie Razzall, followed Omar and his brother, Mohamed Badreddin, as they resettled in Newcastle, portraying them sympathetically despite Omar being accused, during filming, of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.  Even though Omar was the subject of a criminal investigation, the BBC decided to move forward with their documentary.

Two other men were charged with sexual assault as part of the case, one of whom was alleged to have molested a second girl.

In 2016, Omar was acquitted of the charges due to translation errors and lack of evidence.  He claimed the child fabricated the story because she “didn’t want foreigners in this country.”

Two years later, in 2018 and 2019, the Badreddin brothers committed multiple counts of rape.  They were found guilty and jailed in March 2024.

Omar Badreddin was sentenced to 18 years in prison. He was found guilty of five counts of rape and violent disorder against a 13-year-old girl. His brother, Mohamed, was convicted of six counts of rape and one of assault by penetration and was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

The BBC faced criticism from politicians and commentators for its "fawning" coverage and for not challenging Omar’s claim that his accuser fabricated the story due to racism. “Not only did the BBC not challenge this view of the girl ‘making up’ the allegation for racist ends. It also decided to subtly shame the girls at the centre of the case,” Spiked Online said.

The BBC sure knows how to pick them.  The corporation also featured Axel Rudakubana in a 2018 ‘Children in Need’ campaign video.  Rudakubana went on to brutally murder children at a dancing class in Southport in 2024.

As another Twitter user responded to Mr. Lowe’s tweet:

https://twitter.com/sonicboomer0011/status/2071842966441013574

Socialists and communists, the political left, reject authentic, traditional values such as loyalty, masculinity and family, and replace them with inauthentic, ideological concepts like imaginary genders and transnational institutions.

The same pattern of inauthenticity is seen in left-wing leadership, where leaders like Andy Burnham, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are worshipped not for their individual qualities but for serving the Party's quest for power.

Burnham's rise to power is marked by fakeness. He has used a "working man" image and regionalism to connect with voters, while actually prioritising his personal ambitions in Westminster.  His inauthenticity is further demonstrated by the controlled, choreographed environment in which he gives his public speeches, Jupplandia writes.

Andy Burnham’s Crowning Moments

By Jupplandia

Table of Contents

- The Background (What They Hate And What They Love) - But Isn’t This About Andy Burnham?- American Parallels - From Kier to Andy- What of Burnham? - Burnham’s Progress - About the Author The Background (What They Hate And What They Love)

One way to explain what the political left (“Left”) is about is to look at the things they tell you have no meaning, and the things they tell you have massive meaning, and compare the two.

Look at all the things they tell you don’t matter or are wicked - loyalty to your own people, traditional masculinity, fatherhood, motherhood, love of your own country, the traditional Nation State, history, tradition, Christianity, family values.

They go through a checklist of all the things that provide real, rooted stability and identity, and one by one, they poison or destroy them.

Then look at all the things they say do matter - imaginary invented genders, newly imported migrants, modern transnational institutions, contemporary race-obsessed theories, other countries they have never visited, purely ideological creations.

Everything long-lasting, objectively real, proven and meaningful and inherited - what might be called the solid foundations of the world - is meaningless, arbitrary and easily dismissed. The more concrete and real it has been over centuries, the more solidly it has stood the test of time, the less real it is for them.

While the more recently imagined, invented and immaterial a thing is, the more rootless and meaningless it is, the more purely theoretical, delusional, or fictive it is, the more recently or artificially it popped into existence, the more that wisp of air is treated as a solid ground.

Whether it’s family, or faith, or nation, or masculinity, or femininity, or economics or anything you can think of, what we see from the Left is a determined rejection of what is tried, true, real and natural, and a substitution of what is untried, untrue, unreal and unnatural. The authentic is always replaced by an inauthentic mocking copy, a recent and far less worthy and beneficial substitute.

Instead of the nuclear family, you have a sort of freak loyalty ethos, where you are told that polyamorous sex covens will be held together purely by shared politics and large quantities of KY jelly. The family is replaced by gatherings of the morally or spiritually broken, by gangs or by activist cells, or by shadow-families which are smashed together arrangements of strangers. The binding between them is not one of blood, but theory and temporary convenience.

With faith, the old, established, Western religion is to be replaced by a hollow, cynical, sneering nihilism that considers itself sophisticated the more enervating and soulless it becomes, or by new fanaticisms built on nothing, or by (increasingly) the rival Islamic faith that has always been from its creation the most barbaric and worthless religion on Earth. A fake version of Christianity plays a significant part of this too, a version where compassion for those suffering abroad is used as cover for the cruelest betrayals of the innocent within the West, a Christianity where every traditional meaning and instruction is recast as modern progressive dogma and where Communists in robes insist that Jesus would have agreed with Hamas or that the primary lesson of the Bible is that people should take Pride in their sexual fetishes. Patriarchal Islam, transgenderism and LGBTQ+ sermons from the pulpit can all be embraced at once simply because they are mockeries of what Western faith once was and valued.

Masculinity? Labelled toxic, and replaced with “real men enjoy sharing their wives and cry about the fate of African asylum seekers.” Men are forced or encouraged to be as effeminate and weak as possible, to be submissive, to turn to deviant sexualities or to become hyper-emotional hysterics incapable of forming and protecting families and told that transferring all their remaining instincts of protection towards strangers, absurd causes, and the Party makes them righteous and good. We end up with an absurd formulation whereby real men, according to progressives, like migrants, the EU and pegging.

Femininity and womanhood? Robbed of its most natural and benign and beautiful purpose, told that the creation of life and the miracle of love is nothing but a bondage and a form of slavery, and that murdering your own pre-birth offspring in the least natural act of all is an inalienable right and the definition of freedom. Given a compensatory and entirely fake sisterhood, which again is usually simply a cover term for Party-directed conformity and piety surrounding a set of false and insane principles.

And of course, both are attacked simultaneously, the strength of men sapped and the beauty of women mocked, by the substitution of the transsexual and the transvestite for the male and the female, either authentic women replaced by screaming harridans of political hysteria or men pretending to be women and giving a grotesque performance of what femaleness is. What was sold to women as liberation meant a reduction in respect and consideration, not an increase in either, with the freedom to be a frequently discarded and soon discredited sexual toy taking the place of genuine shelter and sympathy within a loving marriage. And the end point of it all was that everything unique and meaningful and mysterious about women is now supposed to be something a man with an uncommon fetish can replicate and replace.

Even on economics, really, what you have is the natural, organic forms of exchange that work and enrich and develop the world, replaced with the more recent, artificial, purely ideological constructs that never work and always ultimately fail in the real world. You go from a theory that looks at how things actually operate to a theory that tells you how things should operate, and which then pretends that violence and force and coercion can make it so and perfect the imperfectible. For all capitalism's faults, it delivers general prosperity and improvement, while aligning naturally with human nature and instinct. For all the idealistic promises of socialism and communism, they utterly ignore human nature and thereby deliver both economic and moral ruin.

On the nation state and nationalism, we see old organic connections spurned, real loyalties abandoned and people told that their loyalty is not to their kith and kin but to imported strangers as alien as possible and as unlike them as possible. The real nation is discarded and the transnational institution is preferred. The citizen is reduced in meaning and the non-citizen is the person the nation now serves.

Every time, we see something that works, replaced with something that doesn’t, something real and natural destroyed and something false and unnatural preferred.

But Isn’t This About Andy Burnham?

All this may seem a long way from Andy Burnham’s coronation march towards Number 10, but it’s actually part of the same general process whereby the authentic is switched for some inauthentic copy that means nothing.

The only difference is that when it comes to their leaders, there isn’t someone real to turn to, because anyone real would not be in a leading position within a progressive leftist party in the first place. Leadership. therefore, becomes the swapping of one synthetic fabrication for another, in the hope that the less familiar one is less soiled. That’s what happens when unpopularity and public revolt make a change of leader expedient. And since everything about progressive leftism (except the pursuit of power) functions on the shallowest surface level imaginable, any person “leading” the movement is simply a place-holding symbol, with no specific individual loyalty attached to them. They can be worshipped, but what’s being worshipped is the extent to which they serve the general quest for total power, and not anything genuinely personal to them.

American Parallels

To a great extent, we have already seen the leftist progressive combination of surface reading and total inauthenticity play out in the US before it has been so obviously aired in Britain.

Obama, for example, was worshipped for being black (again, inauthentic, since he was mixed race ... it is always a substitute). His lounge singer smoothness really wasn’t as convincing as all that, and his folksy charm became exceedingly brittle whenever anyone bothered to directly challenge it. Yet to the Left, he was Cicero in speech, and Plato in thought, and Jesus in compassion, merely because he pretended it was so, and they were told it was so, and nobody else so effectively served and delivered the political power of Progressivism in its capture of America. ANY black or mixed race leader capable of forming a sentence and not hideous to look at could have been switched for Obama with the same effect and the same programmed devotional response.

The rapid switch from ‘Biden is sharp as a tack to Biden must go’ shows us, in a different way, how inauthentic all leftist leadership is and how power-driven all leftist commentary on which people are worthy is. Joe was a ‘Good Man of Perfect Clarity’, until he was an obvious electoral liability, and then he wasn’t. Since he served the Party by stepping aside, he regained the status that had just been taken from him, and became a living saint again (perhaps the patron saint of corrupt causes, or dementia). Instantly, he was again ‘A Good Man’. That Tim Walz was put forward as “a real man” and ‘Cackling Kamala’ was instantly the embodiment of hope is part of the same phenomenon.

The Left’s leaders really aren’t ever known as individuals by the Left (any more than anyone else is). They are place-holding shallow symbols representing positive abstracts (Hope, Change) or group identities whose “worth” is seen only so long as it serves the interests of the Party.

Now to Britain’s parallels, and Britain’s illustration of the inauthenticity of leftist leadership dramas.

From Kier to Andy

Above: a visibly moved Kier Starmer announces his resignation.

Kier Starmer is, of course, barely a human being. He’s a leftist progressive human rights robot. I fully suspect that when not operational in public, he gets switched off and stored in an understairs cupboard like a Dyson vacuum cleaner. Even the Left sensed his creepy roboticism, but since they themselves have ruthlessly suppressed genuine human awareness, they struggled to understand what it is that was wrong with Keir. Confused and, as always, unwilling to admit error, they settled on the compromise of “he’s a Good Man, but failed to connect with the public” (note that “connect.” It wasn’t human connection. It was more like plugging in the machine properly so the right message spits out).

Keir mirrors Biden. Sheer banal lack of imagination functions in a similar fashion to the memory fogs of dementia. Like Biden, Keir was given power he didn’t really earn. What Biden got by fraud, Starmer got by default. Like Biden, Starmer’s reign was cut short by an internal party coup when he became too publicly hated. “Fuck Joe Biden” and “Starmer is a Wanker” being shouted by crowds wherever they went are essentially regional variations of the same public realisation regarding fraudulent and malign leaders being foisted upon them. And like Biden, Starmer spent a lot of his period in power delivering a very rapid decline and an even more rapid slide into authoritarianism while claiming to be fighting extremism. Both lectured the majority of their population on how evil they are, both raged against the “Far Right.”

What of Burnham?

Well, if Burnham has a US comparator, then he is probably closer to Tim Walz than Kamala. But it’s the general inauthenticity that dominates. Burnham had a bit more warmth about him than Starmer, but not a lot. It’s the difference between a Cyberman from Dr. Who and an ingratiating and oleaginous vicar from a Jane Austin novel. There is a marvellous British character actor who has played such roles and other comic ones, a guy called David Bamber. In a British sitcom from the 1990s called ‘Chalk’, Bamber starred as an amoral, incompetent, energetic head teacher full of false positivity, trying and failing to disguise that he was something of a howling void. That is Andy Burnham with a heavy dose of fake Mancunian-Northern “working man” image thrown in.

If we look at Burnham’s Progress so far, every step along the way reeks of fakeness.

Burnham’s Progress

An aligned plotter stepped down to give Burnham his chance at becoming a Member of Parliament (“MP”) again. That means that MP lied to his constituents when he was elected and said he would serve them. The MP was actually serving a Labour Together plot. Burnham then ran for election in Makerfield, but the whole time his focus was on Westminster and Downing Street. He tells Makerfield they matter and he will serve them, but it’s purely a stepping stone, effectively abandoned as soon as he won (if anyone thinks Makerfield will be the putative PM’s focus from now on, they are mad). This, of course, has also betrayed Burnham’s claims when running for the post of Mayor of Manchester, which he casually discarded as soon as a route to Downing Street appeared.

Laughably, Burnham uses regionalism and “Manchester lad from your cobbled streets” bullsh*t as his selling point. In his big vision speech, he spoke about his casual attire as clothing “those Westminster types refer to as my Manchester clothes.” It was a truly pathetic explosion of fakeness. I can’t imagine any Labour MP sneering at jeans and sneakers as being “Manchester clothes.” It wasn’t as if Burnham was dressed like Liam from Oasis or like Shaun from the Happy Mondays. He was wearing what every 50-something male wears at the weekend. There was nothing specifically Manchester about the outfit he had on.

But think of it in the context of what he’d just done, why he was there, and what is authentic and what is fake.

He’s literally just dumped Manchester to run off to London where the real power is, like a guy who ditches his fat girlfriend when he’s got a chance at a swimwear model. He’s literally just told everyone that Westminster matters more to him, been helped by Westminster power players and a Westminster-based conspiracy, and been welcomed into London by an adoring crowd of Westminster MPs.

Manchester is a suit of clothes, an image, a front, not a real place he gives a sh*t about. The great regionalist drops everything when the chance comes to get back to London.

How did he conduct his Makerfield campaign? He avoided all questions and got flustered and nasty when a real journalist got into one of his events. Everyone he met was hand-picked to be there. So far as real enquiry went, he hid in his basement.

How did he handle his first big speech since becoming the Anointed One? A hand-picked audience, no debate, no questions allowed from the media, a completely controlled and choreographed location, and a lot of surface-only markers. The venue was symbolically chosen (the People’s History Museum in Manchester). All of it a cosplaying farce-rush to London, a creepily Pod People welcome from Labour MPs acting as if this nerdy figure is a rock star, a signing on as an MP with a puerile joke exchange as Burnham and a “heckler” exchange Month Python’s Life of Brian lines (possibly the greatest indicator ever given that none of these people have matured beyond the age of 14), then rush back to Manchester to pretend that he still cares.

All of it is fakery, all of it inauthentic. That speech? Waffle, platitudes, third-rate leftist boilerplate about hope and change. The only solid commitments so far are ones that will bankrupt the country (nationalisation moves) and ones that will speed up sectarianism and the break-up of the UK (more powers to Mayors). Even the leftism is essentially fake, it devours itself. A museum of the working class, curated by, delivered by and enjoyed by the middle class. A place to go and marvel at Michael Foot’s donkey jacket (a failure who achieved nothing, and who wasn’t working class), while the actual working class are excluded from the event.

This is what Labour thinks will save them, and us? This 56-year-old Cambridge graduate nerd with the comedy references of a 14-year-old and the kind of politics that sees ‘Michael Foot’s donkey jacket’ as important JG which has studiously avoided real people throughout an undemocratic and unopposed march to power?

About the Author

Michelle says that from the age of 13, she was raped by between six and seven hundred different men over the course of three years.  “98% of were Pakistani Muslim. If not, they were Iraqi Muslim or Kurdish,” she said.

She told the Rape Gang Inquiry that there is an extensive network of abusers operating across the entire country, calling it “industrial” in scale. It functions as a large central network with smaller connected groups in specific localities.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

“At the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma,” The Rape Gang Inquiry Report said.

The 250,000 figure is based on remarks passed by Lord Malcolm Pearson during debates in the House of Lords over the years, as seen HERE and HERE.  The figure was extrapolated from the Jay Report’s findings in Rotherham alongside comparable inquiries in Telford, Oxford, Rochdale and elsewhere.

In 2015, Rotherham’s then MP Sarah Champion said, “There are hundreds of thousands, and I think there could be up to a million victims of exploitation nationwide, including right now, girls in the process of being groomed.”

Related: The Rape Gang Inquiry Report: Crimes are both racially and religiously motivated

Thousands of these victims volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Michelle’s testimony.  Michelle is not her real name. “Some of the witnesses have to remain anonymous for their own safety,” the report says.  You can read the full report HERE.

Like ‘Chloe’ and Fiona, ‘Michelle’ was a vulnerable child from a dysfunctional family, with little to no parental support.  There is a pattern of vulnerable children being deliberately sought out and targeted.  From her personal experience, ‘Chloe’ described the grooming process by groups of Muslim men, primarily Pakistanis, many of whom were taxi drivers, as them “mapping out, are you a vulnerable person?”  Once her vulnerability had been established, things escalated.

As Fiona had testified, Michelle believes authorities, such as police, failed to intervene for fear of being labelled “racist.” Michelle believes the fear of being labelled as “racist” has helped make these Muslim rape gangs “untouchable.”

Related:

- The biraderi network is protecting Muslim rape gang perpetrators in the UK - Muslim rape gangs are linked to the heroin trade ‘Michelle’

‘Michelle’ was physically abused in childhood by both her mother and stepfather. Her mother had multiple partners throughout Michelle’s childhood, many of whom also abused her – some sexually. She believes this early experience created an association between abuse and love, leaving her particularly vulnerable.

From the age of 13, she was groomed by three adult Pakistani brothers who supplied her with alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. She was raped while intoxicated, including one occasion when she was taken upstairs while her sister tried to intervene. Because of her upbringing, she thought this was normal – that they were her boyfriends and that they loved her. She would go missing for extended periods and was subjected to repeated daily sexual abuse. The perpetrators would collect her from school, her home, and public places, using threats of violence to coerce and control her.

At age 14, she was gang-raped and beaten by three men who had locked her in a house. She was left covered in cuts and bruises, which alerted a friend. The friend told her own mother, who then contacted Michelle’s mother. The police were called, but they claimed there was little they could do without more evidence. One of the gang members later forced Michelle to go to the police station with him to retract her statement. The police accepted him as her “appropriate adult” – a role normally reserved for a parent, close family member, social worker, or trained professional. The investigation was subsequently dropped.

One of Michelle’s friends, who lived in a care home, would be collected directly outside by the same gang. Care staff would call the police, but officers reportedly referred to the girls as “prostitutes” despite them being children. Both social services and the police, Michelle says, failed to understand the situation and believed the girls were engaging in the activity by choice. As a result, little was done to intervene. When she was abducted and went missing, no one came looking for her. A social worker once told her that, at age 14, she would be allowed to live with her 30-year-old “boyfriend” as long as they did not share a room.

Michelle was raped in bin sheds, threatened with a knife, and forced into sex with multiple men waiting in cars. She was drugged, beaten, burned with cigarettes, locked in rooms, and passed between men. An amusement arcade was used as a front for drug dealing and the sexual exploitation of children. She became pregnant four times as a child as a result of rape, leading to miscarriages, one abortion, and one surviving child. Of her abusers, she states: “98% of them were Pakistani Muslim. If not, they were Iraqi Muslim or Kurdish.”

Crispin Flintoff spent 21 days at the Old Bailey attending the trial of three men accused of arson attacks on properties linked to Keir Starmer. “What I heard in court was not the story later told by the BBC,” he said.

Related: Trial of three “male models” accused of arson attacks on property linked to Starmer begins – corporate media is silent

The Starmer Arson Trial Didn't Add Up

By The Crispin Flintoff Show, 23 June 2026

Table of Contents

- Introduction - Fear of contempt - “Rent Boys” - About the Author Introduction

I spent 21 days at the Old Bailey because I thought a major public interest story was unfolding in front of me and hardly anybody else was watching.

Three young men stood accused of carrying out arson attacks on a car and two properties linked to Keir Starmer. They had been arrested by counter-terrorism police and spent a year in Belmarsh prison awaiting trial. At the centre of the prosecution case was a mysterious Telegram user known as ‘El Money’, who was alleged to have directed the arsons but was not himself in the dock.

Three young men stood accused of carrying out arson attacks on a car and two properties linked to Keir Starmer. Roman Lavrynovych, 22, a Ukrainian national from western Ukraine, was accused of setting fire to a Toyota RAV4 previously owned by Starmer at 2.42am on Thursday 8 May 2025, and then being involved in fires at Ellington Street at 2.05am on Sunday 11 May and Countess Road at 1.35am on Monday 12 May. Stanislav Carpiuc (picture below left), 27, a Romanian national who had lived in Britain for nine years, was accused of helping connect people and arrange payment. Petro Pochynok (picture centre), 35, a Ukrainian-born man who had lived in the UK for several years, was accused of involvement but was later acquitted.

The three had been arrested by counter-terrorism police and spent a year in Belmarsh prison awaiting trial. At the centre of the prosecution case was a mysterious Telegram user known as ‘El Money’, who was alleged to have directed the arsons but was not himself in the dock.

There were obvious questions from the start. How did these men know details about Starmer’s former car and two addresses connected to him? Why had they been held in Britain’s highest-security prison? Who exactly was ‘El Money’? And why, if this was such a serious case involving the Prime Minister, were so few people there to watch it?

I had no idea what was involved in attending a major criminal trial. I did not know whether the public gallery would be packed, whether I would be able to get in or even whether the defendants would appear in person. I was advised to use CourtServe to find the right courtroom, which turned out to be vital. Court Two at the Old Bailey was not accessed through the normal public route, and without that advice I am not sure I would have known where to go.

On the first day, 27 April 2026, I arrived at 9 am. I had even stayed in a hotel nearby the night before because I was worried I might miss the start of proceedings. Part of my motivation came from two journalists I admire: the late Frank Doleman, whom I knew when I was a student at Glasgow University and Craig Murray, whose determination to bear witness to important proceedings has always stayed with me. Murray once slept outside the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the middle of winter to guarantee himself a seat for the Gaza genocide hearings. I felt this was one of those stories where simply turning up mattered.

But I was also aware of the rumours already swirling around the case. Some people were interested because of speculation that the defendants may have been “rent boys.” That was not evidence before the jury and it is not something I claim to prove. But it was a major talking point around the trial and it cannot simply be ignored if one is trying to understand why people were interested, why certain lines of inquiry mattered and why some people suspected there was more to the case than a straightforward arson conspiracy.

In the first few days, a curious assortment of people came to watch. There were two Tommy Robinson supporters who appeared to have heard rumours about the backgrounds of the defendants. There was a journalist from Vox Populi who came and went over the 21 days. There were people who had watched George Galloway’s show and were interested to see what might emerge. An academic became a regular presence and my friend Rob, who knows the court system well through Palestine protest cases, was also there. But after the prosecution opening, many of those people stopped coming.

On Day 3, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson told the jury that it was “no part of your considerations to decide who El Money is and what reason he might have had to coordinate the actions of these defendants.” The jury were also told that motive was not relevant to their task. Keir Starmer was mentioned, as he had to be, because he connected the three fires. But the case was narrowed to a much simpler legal question: did these three men conspire to commit arson?

The early media reports picked up the prosecution’s description of El Money as Russian-speaking. That immediately shifted the public understanding of the case. The rumours that had drawn some people to the public gallery faded and the story became one of a possible foreign threat. Yet if this really was a Russian operation directed at the Prime Minister, I could not understand why there was not a much larger media presence. Why were there no cameras outside the Old Bailey every day? Why was the public gallery so empty?

PM arson trial latest: Men accused of being paid by Russian speaker known as 'El Money' to target homes linked to Starmer, Sky News, 30 April 2026

That was one reason I kept going. Something about the narrative did not feel right.

What I quickly discovered was that attending a major trial is almost a profession in itself. Every day involved airport-style security. You could not bring in a phone, a water bottle or a large bag. You could not stand up in the public gallery, even though the witness stand and the screens were below us and difficult or impossible to see. We had no access to the evidence bundles or documents. We were expected to follow a complex case through voices, fragments and memory.

I found a nearby travel agent who would look after my phone for £2 in cash or £5 by debit card. Travelling from Reading to Farringdon, including parking, cost me around £100 a day. Over 21 days, that came to more than £2,000 simply to turn up. There is a reason so few people sit through long trials any more. It is expensive, time-consuming and difficult to combine with earning a living.

Inside Court Two, the world felt oddly theatrical. Each session began with a loud knock and the instruction: “All stand.”

Mr. Justice Garnham entered and took his place on the high bench. The barristers were wigged and gowned. Each defendant had a lead and junior barrister. The defendants sat inside a plastic-enclosed dock alongside security staff and interpreters. The whole thing had the appearance of openness, but in the public gallery we felt cut off. We could hear proceedings, but we could not see much of what mattered: no video evidence and none of the manuscripts of the incriminating messages between the defendants.

Mr. Justice Garnham seemed affable and not particularly pompous, considering his title and responsibility. He appeared keen to keep the trial moving and regularly expressed concern about the jury getting tired or jurors dropping out. But there was also a strange culture of deference in the room. At one point, he mentioned he had tickets for the cricket but the weather forecast was rain, and the barristers laughed as though it was the funniest thing anyone had said all week. When D’Souza and Rashid applied for “no case to answer” and the judge rejected the application, both made a point of saying, “Thank you, m’lud.” I understand that this is courtroom etiquette, but from the public gallery it felt like watching a contest in sycophancy.

I started putting out video reports about what I was hearing in court and the inconsistencies I was spotting. That came with risks. The judge repeatedly warned the public gallery that anything said in court while the jury were not present could not be reported and that doing so could amount to contempt of court and even lead to imprisonment.

Fear of contempt

On Day 12, this suddenly became very real. While the jury were out, Mr. Justice Garnham told the court that a YouTube post about the trial from someone in the public gallery had been brought to his attention by a “regular journalist.” He said he would look at it over lunch to decide whether there was a possible contempt issue.

I realised he was probably talking about me. I left the gallery, deleted the videos and spent the lunch break phoning lawyers for advice. Within an hour I had four different opinions. Two told me not to go back because I would be like a red rag to a bull and the judge might direct someone to arrest me. One said there was nothing to worry about. The last said that if I stayed away and the judge thought I was in contempt, he could order my arrest at home, which would be even more inconvenient.

So, I went back. Feeling like a martyr, I said a prayer or five, joined the queue for the 2 pm restart, went up to the gallery and prepared myself for being arrested. I even had my solicitor’s number with me. But nothing happened. The judge came in, we all stood up, he called for the jury and the trial continued. At the end of the afternoon, he simply adjourned the case until the following day.

I left the court feeling like a free man. I was overjoyed to get on a packed Underground train and then a train from Paddington. I resolved never to do another court report again - at least until the end of the trial.

The barristers were something to behold. It was like a theatre company. Atkinson, for the prosecution, reminded me of a head boy reporting litter to the headmaster. He had an odd habit of playing with his cufflinks while speaking and seemed keen to tell the judge what those of us in the public gallery could or could not report. His presentation was dry, almost surprisingly so given the seriousness later attached to the case.

James Scobie KC, representing Lavrynovych, was matter-of-fact and schoolmasterly. He carried himself with understated authority, holding his gown close to his chest and sipping from what look like a thimble of coffee between questions. His case seemed to rest heavily on portraying his client as “low intelligence” and easily manipulated. At times, though, it felt as if he was doing more to convict his own client than the prosecution, because Lavrynovych admitted much of what he had done and Scobie appeared keen to implicate the other two defendants.

Dominic D’Souza, representing Pochynok, was the most dramatic and energetic performer in court. He clashed with Scobie at times and once told him to stop shaking his head while he was speaking. He was the stand out performer. He had a difficult job as his client had undermined his whole case with a lie that he had met Lavrynovych at 2 am in Tufnel Park to help him move heavy luggage. D’Souza addressed this full on by dubbing it “laughable lies about luggage” and suggesting that everyone makes up stories when they panic but that there was no evidence his client knew he was participating in arson. His argument appeared to land. Many of us in the gallery thought Pochynok might be acquitted after that speech - and he was.

Shahid Rashid, representing Carpiuc, appeared as calm as a Buddhist monk. His voice was high-pitched, almost musical, and at times rather soporific. He was methodical and far less abrasive than the other defence barristers. He seemed less interested in attacking the other defendants and more focused on showing that Carpiuc thought the whole plan to set fire to the car was “mad” and was not really interested in the arson itself.

The defence teams were far from united. One of the surprises of the trial was how often the barristers attacked another defence barrister’s clients. At times, it felt as though the prosecution had three extra advocates.

One thing I had not anticipated was how central language would become. The interpreters were essential to proceedings and the pauses created by translation allowed me to write down many exchanges almost verbatim. But interpretation itself became an issue. On one occasion, an interpreter interrupted proceedings to say that some of the Telegram messages were in Ukrainian and not just Russian. Mr Justice Garnham rebuked her, saying it was “not for the translator to give evidence.”

That moment stayed with me because language was not just a technical detail, it became central to the case.

On Day 3, El Money had been presented as Russian-speaking. By Day 4, it became clear that messages were in Russian and Ukrainian. In the witness box, Lavrynovych said he could not tell where El Money was from because messages were in both languages. Later, he referred to El Money as “they.” When cross-examined, he said there was at least one woman involved, possibly more, as well as two or three men. One message referred to ‘my husband’ checking up on the Toyota car.

This was not the simple picture later presented to the public.

“Rent Boys”

Then there were the money questions. A major part of the prosecution case was that these men were desperate for money and prepared to do almost anything for it. The jury heard claims that they were willing to carry out anti-Muslim graffiti on an Islamic centre for £20 or take a removals job for £30. If the prosecution wanted the jury to believe they were that desperate, then it was fair to ask what other forms of cash work they may have been involved in.

This is where the “rent boys” issue came in. I am not saying it was proved in court. It was not. But the attempt to dismiss the line of inquiry simply because Tommy Robinson or George Galloway had discussed it is weak. An idea is not disproved by pointing to who has forwarded it. It has to be tested against the evidence.

The court appeared keen to move away from that suggestion by emphasising that the men worked in construction, hotels and other ordinary jobs. But details emerged that made the picture more complicated. For reasons that were never entirely clear to me, the prosecution appeared to want the jury to know that Lavrynovych had a girlfriend. Her name, Victoria, and the fact that she lived in Surrey Quays, were mentioned. Later, when the jury asked whether Carpiuc had a girlfriend, the judge told them not to speculate.

There was also material outside the court proceedings that complicated the picture further. The defendants appear to have had Grindr accounts, and those accounts were taken down while they were in custody. It also emerged that Carpiuc’s regular drinking spot was The Champion in Notting Hill, a pub associated with Freddie Mercury and a considerable distance from the hotel where he worked in Paddington. None of this proves anything on its own and it was not evidence put before the jury. But if the case repeatedly returned to money, cash work and what these men may have been prepared to do for it, then it is not unreasonable to ask what aspects of their lives were not explored in court.

During cross-examination, Carpiuc was shown a photograph by his barrister and asked to explain it. The barrister acknowledged that the question might be embarrassing, then asked what he was doing in the picture. It turned out to be connected to modelling. Carpiuc said that seven years earlier he had joined a modelling agency, attended events and met people involved in that line of business. He said this “type of activity” was not for him. What struck me is that Carpiuc was not the only one with a link to modelling. Lavrynovych also appears to have had a modelling portfolio. Yet, as far as I could tell, he was not asked about it in the same way.

The money evidence itself raised more questions.

During cross-examination, one barrister appeared to try to humiliate Carpiuc by showing that he had very little money in his five bank accounts at the time of his arrest. Across all five accounts, the total was £214.28. Carpiuc seemed shocked by the suggestion that this meant he was desperate. He said he was not desperate because he had a lot of cash and was often paid cash in hand. What jobs are paid cash in hand nowadays?

Oddly, Lavrynovych was not asked the same kind of question about how much money he had in his bank accounts. That evidence was not put before the jury in the same way. I found that curious because, on 11 March, two months before the fires, Lavrynovych set up a company. Between then and his arrest, that company had six bank accounts attached to it. Why would a man supposedly so desperate for money, taking removals jobs for £30, need a company with six bank accounts?

There was more.

Lavrynovych shipped two cars to Ukraine earlier that year. One was a Dacia Duster five-door hatchback worth around £3,000, sent in February 2025. The other was a BMW estate worth around £4,000, sent in the same month as the arson attacks. He said he had bought the cars with his savings. For someone presented as broke and desperate, that raised obvious questions. Why would someone send a car worth £4,000, plus shipping costs, to Ukraine and then be presented as living in poverty?

Another surprise came from Carpiuc’s questioning under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act after his arrest at Luton Airport on 17 May 2025. Schedule 7 allowed police to question him and access his devices. Carpiuc later disputed aspects of what had been attributed to him, saying he had been drunk and that the interpreter was “rubbish.” The police officer who interviewed him was called to give evidence and said Carpiuc had seemed coherent and did not appear drunk.

What astonished me was that the interview had not been digitally recorded. The officer had simply taken notes. In a case involving counter-terrorism powers, the Prime Minister and huge political sensitivities, I found that remarkable. And that’s how the Terrorism Act can be misused!

It became even more significant when the prosecution later had to admit that a statement from the police officer had not been disclosed to the court. Defence barristers applied for the case to be thrown out or stayed, but the judge rejected the applications.

Kenny Carmody, who lives in California, USA, was severely injured by a dose of Moderna’s covid “vaccine” which he received in 2021.

He was, before that fateful injection, a healthy, active 25-year-old man.  Now, he has a rare neuromuscular disease and multi-system damage. He is mostly bedridden and can barely walk.

“Doctors mostly dismissed me as psychosomatic, anxious or worse,” he says. “For three years I have spoken out … calling for acknowledgement, proper diagnostic codes, real care and accountability for what was done to us.”

“I stand with every vaccine-injured person who has been denied, dismissed and abandoned.”

This is What Moderna’s Covid Vaccine Did To Me

By Kenny Carmody, 28 June 2026

Almost five years ago, I was a healthy, very active man in the prime of my life.

An artist by heart and soul who had travelled to over 100 countries, maintained peak health and fitness, and ran or hiked miles in nature almost every day. Simple, full and free.

Then, on 21 July 2021, I received the Moderna covid vaccine.

I felt it the moment it entered my body.

Within days, a cytokine storm triggered a rare neuromuscular disease and multi-system damage. I went from the ICU to six brutal weeks in hospital, and nothing has been the same since.

Today, I am mostly bedridden, confined to my bedroom. I cannot work. I cannot drive. I cannot grocery shop. I can barely walk more than short distances on my best days. I have not left my house further than a quarter mile in years.

Every single day I endure ischemic stroke-like episodes, a partially paralyzed diaphragm that makes breathing a struggle, severe neuropathic pain, esophagus and larynx spasms, severe swallowing issues that make eating difficult, severe trigeminal and occipital neuralgia, crushing fatigue, dysphagia that turns eating into an hour-long ordeal, neuro degeneration and neuromuscular disease diagnosed as ALS unspecified, and waves of symptoms that force me to be bedridden.

Doctors mostly dismissed me as psychosomatic, anxious or worse. One diagnosis I had to sue to have removed from my record. I spent over $60,000 chasing every treatment the injured community has tried. Nothing gave lasting relief. I became my own doctor, turning to sunlight, grounding, circadian alignment, nature and my faith in God, which is what carries me when the body wants to quit.

For three years I have spoken out, documenting my journey, writing on X and Substack, calling for acknowledgement, proper diagnostic codes, real care and accountability for what was done to us. I stand with every vaccine-injured person who has been denied, dismissed and abandoned.

Yet suddenly the story has gone silent. People are no longer talking about the people who became severely disabled after one shot. Support has dwindled. The institutions that told us it was safe have offered no honest accounting. No real acknowledgement. No justice.

The reality is that we did not recover when the headlines ended. We are still here. I am still here. Still mostly bedridden.

2026 has been brutal. Still fighting every single day. Still waiting for the truth to be told.

Please share this. Not for sympathy, but because thousands of vaccine-injured people deserve to know they have not been forgotten.

Prayers are what this world needs more than ever. Please don’t stop believing and dreaming of a better world. God is not finished with us yet.

May God bless you, and peace be with you.

Fiona grew up in an abusive household and developed mental health difficulties, self-harm behaviours and suicidal ideation from a young age.

At age 13, she was placed in a children's home.  The care home had already been flagged as high risk for child sexual exploitation. While at the care home, she was groomed by adult Pakistani men, leading to rape, drug dependency and trafficking, with care staff and authorities failing to protect her.

Fiona estimates she was abused by between 50 and 100 men, all of whom, excepting two, were Pakistani.  The abuse only stopped when she turned 18 and, presumably, left the care home. She has suffered profound physical and psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.

Chloe testified that during the grooming phase by Muslim taxi drivers in her home town, they assessed whether she came from a dysfunctional home.  Once it was established that she was a vulnerable child with little possibility of protection from family members, things escalated.

Similar to Chloe, Fiona was a vulnerable child when the Muslim rape gangs targeted her.  In Fiona’s case, she was placed in a care home at the age of 13. The care home she was placed in had already been identified as high-risk for child sexual exploitation. 

While she was in the care home, Muslim rape gangs targeted her.  Care home staff and police officers turned a blind eye and allowed, if not facilitated, Muslim rape gangs to continue to abuse her for fear of being labelled “racist.”  The predatory paedophilic rapists and torturers operated with impunity; the only people they feared were members of the English Defence League.

Related:  

- The Rape Gang Inquiry Report: The state not only ignored whistle-blowers; it punished them - The Truth Behind The English Defence League – Exclusive Untold Story

The following is Fiona’s testimony as documented in The Rape Gang Inquiry Report.  You can read the full report HERE.

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report, 16 June 2026 Fiona

Fiona grew up in a highly abusive household marked by domestic violence, severe emotional abuse, and repeated suicide attempts by her mother, which Fiona witnessed. Despite exceptional academic ability, she developed serious mental health difficulties, self-harm behaviours, and suicidal ideation from a young age.

After escalating abuse and failed disclosures, Fiona entered care at the age of 13. She was placed in a children’s home that had already been identified as high-risk for sexual exploitation in a television documentary prior to her arrival. Inadequate supervision meant she went missing repeatedly. At 13, she was groomed by adult Pakistani men, whom she estimates were aged between 24 and 45. The grooming began with affection and alcohol, quickly progressing to rape, drug dependency, threats, and trafficking.

Care staff negligence was extreme. Abusers would sit in cars outside waiting for the girls, openly converse with staff, and even phone the home to inquire about them. One care worker told Fiona’s mother that her boss had described recording the men’s car registration plates as “above her pay grade,” warning that she would lose her job if she did so. Fiona believes the staff were aware of what was happening but felt powerless to stop it rather than being actively complicit. Nevertheless, the children’s home received £5,000 per week to care for her and failed miserably. Fiona suspects the management avoided proper investigation for fear of being labelled racist.

Only the police took any formal action, issuing “harbouring notices” to the men – official warnings stating they had no permission to associate with, contact, or house a vulnerable child. However, no further action followed. When Fiona’s mother called the police to report her daughter missing and mentioned a history of abuse by Asian men, the call handler told her: “You can’t describe them as Asian men because that’s racist. You should just be glad your child is being taught a different culture.” On one occasion, a police officer returned Fiona to the house where the abuse was occurring and told the men to “have fun with her.” On another occasion, police instructed the abusers that if they could persuade Fiona to sign herself out of care, the police would stop bothering them.  The gang then tried to convince her to do so, intending to traffic her to Kashmir. She was only prevented from leaving the country because she did not have a passport.

Between 2008 and 2012, Fiona was repeatedly raped by multiple men connected to organised grooming networks. She was often kept in a house known as a “party house,” where between 10 and 20 men would attend at one time. On one occasion, she was encouraged to bring her friends because the owner had relatives visiting from Birmingham to celebrate Eid and “expected girls to be there.” Within the house, the girls were routinely referred to as “white slags,” while the men wanted Pakistani girls kept “pure” for marriage.

The gangs reportedly discussed fears that the English Defence League (EDL) would arrive armed, so they kept baseball bats for protection. They also allegedly spoke of attending EDL demonstrations with weapons.

Fiona was not only trafficked and raped across multiple cities in the UK but was also forced to traffic drugs. Drugs, intimidation, and violence were used to control her. She was made to clean up the knives from the scene of two fatal stabbings. She was present during a shootout. Her abusers bragged to her that they had hidden dead bodies in a certain location. A few days later, Fiona recalls the news reporting on a body being recovered from the same location that the abusers had disclosed to her. As a result, threats of violence carried enormous weight.

At 14, Fiona was abused by a man known as “Rambo.” He had entered Britain illegally in the back of a lorry. Previously castrated in Pakistan as punishment for child abuse, he had then fled to the Philippines, where he allegedly attacked multiple women and children with a large knife – the origin of his nickname. Rambo was locked in a room with two girls and subjected them to extreme sexual torture. This case illustrated that, in some instances, the sexual abuse of children was driven more by humiliation and control than by sexual gratification.

At 15, Fiona became pregnant while in a mixed-sex care home. Her son was later removed and adopted due to the ongoing exploitation risks, yet Fiona herself was left in the same dangerous environment. The abuse continued into her adulthood. It only stopped when she turned 18, leaving her with profound physical and psychological trauma, including PTSD, substance dependency, and long-term health damage.

World Council for Health has summarised crucial evidence of the unnecessary harm covid vaccines have caused.

“The material presented in this can be used in individual or class action legal steps,” it said.

The Okoro et al. study, Denis Rancourt’s analysis and Pfizer’s trial data found a significant increase in deaths after vaccination.

Additionally, Christine Cotton's biostatistical analysis of the Pfizer clinical trial data revealed that the vaccine's efficacy was overstated and the vaccines had no proven efficacy against severe disease or death.

However, iatrogenic deaths didn’t begin with the roll out of the vaccine.  Hospital treatment protocols were catastrophic.  Hospitals were where the real covid cull occurred.

The Greatest Medical Catastrophe Nobody Wants to Name: What the Data Actually Shows About the Pfizer Covid Injections

By World Council for Health, 26 June 2026

The material presented in this article can be used in individual or class action legal steps.

A deep dive into the Okoro et al.’s World Health Organisation (“WHO”) data bombshell, the Rancourt mortality analyses, Christine Cotton’s devastating biostatistical autopsy of the clinical trials, the War Room/ DailyClout Pfizer document revelations and the Michels et al. forensic death analysis - plus how hospital protocols, not the virus, drove the death toll.

Individually, each of these studies presents a vital part of the jigsaw. In combination, the conclusions become all the more devastating.

Table of Contents

- The Study That Should Have Been Page One Everywhere - The Rancourt Numbers: 17 Million and Counting - Christine Cotton: The Biostatistician Who Took Apart the Trial (H3) - The 11 Deaths: How Pfizer Hid the Real Body Count - The Michels et al. Forensic Death Analysis: What the Peer-Reviewed Paper Found - The Hospital Treatment Protocols: Where the Real Killing Happened - Connecting the Threads - References - About the Author The Study That Should Have Been Page One Everywhere

In April 2025, a paper landed in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine that should have triggered emergency congressional hearings, front-page headlines and a complete re-evaluation of every public health decision made since late 2020. Instead, it was memory-holed with the efficiency we’ve all come to expect.

Okoro, Ikoba and colleagues did something almost too obvious to be radical: they simply compared covid-19 deaths in the pre-vaccine period against the vaccination period  - using the WHO’s own data - and asked what happened.

Here’s what happened:

- Africa: 43.3% increase in covid deaths with vaccination. - Eastern Mediterranean: 350.9% increase. - South-East Asia: 403.7% increase. - Europe: 496.5% increase. - Americas: 705.9% increase. - Western Pacific: 1,275.0% increase.

Let that sit for a moment. The Western Pacific region  - Australia, Japan, South Korea, countries with advanced healthcare systems and very high vaccination uptake - saw covid deaths multiply by nearly 13-fold after the vaccines were deployed.

The study’s authors call this finding “paradoxical,” which is polite academic-speak for “the exact opposite of what we were promised.”

The regions with the lowest vaccination rates - Africa at 3.8% of global cumulative deaths pre-vaccines, the Western Pacific at 1.5% - were essentially untouched by covid mortality before the shots arrived. Meanwhile, the Americas and Europe, with their aggressive vaccination campaigns, accounted for over 70% of global covid deaths despite their high vaccination coverage.

This isn’t a paradox. It’s a pattern. And patterns demand explanations.

The Rancourt Numbers: 17 Million and Counting

Denis Rancourt, a former physics professor at the University of Ottawa, has produced what is arguably the most comprehensive excess mortality analysis of the covid period. His team’s 2024 paper examined all-cause mortality in 125 countries across six continents - roughly 35% of the global population - with weekly or monthly resolution spanning years before and during the declared pandemic.

The headline finding: 30.9 million excess deaths globally for 2020–2022, a mortality rate of 0.392% of the population - comparable in scale to the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.

But here’s where it gets uncomfortable for the narrative. Using temporal association between vaccine rollouts and mortality spikes across 78 countries with sufficient data, Rancourt’s team calculated a vaccine-dose fatality rate (“vDFR”) and projected approximately 16.9 million covid-19 vaccine-associated deaths globally through the end of 2022.

In a separate Southern Hemisphere study of 17 countries, Rancourt et al. (2023) found an all-ages vDFR of approximately 0.126%. This implies roughly 17 million vaccine deaths from 13.5 billion injections - and critically, no evidence in any country of the vaccine rollouts being associated with a reduction in excess all-cause mortality.

The core finding across all of Rancourt’s work is devastating in its simplicity: the spatiotemporal pattern of excess mortality is incompatible with a spreading viral contagion as the primary cause of death. Nine of the 17 Southern Hemisphere countries studied showed no detectable excess mortality during the first year of the declared pandemic - until the vaccines were rolled out. Then the death spikes began.

Christine Cotton: The Biostatistician Who Took Apart the Trial (H3)

Christine Cotton spent 25 years running clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry as founder and director of the contract research organisation Statitec. She knew exactly what a properly conducted trial looks like - and what Pfizer’s C4591001 trial actually showed.

Cotton’s analysis - presented in 2022 to France’s Parliamentary Office for Scientific & Technological Assessment (“OPECST”); in 2023 to Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry; and preserved in a bilingual archive after her death on 2 June 2026 - dismantled the efficacy claims piece by piece:

1. The 95% Efficacy Was a Measurement Trick

Pfizer counted only symptomatic covid-19 cases confirmed by PCR. But they also measured anti-nucleocapsid serology - a marker showing who actually got infected during the trial, symptoms or not. When Cotton calculated efficacy using that comprehensive criterion, the result was approximately 55%, not 95%.

2. No Proven Efficacy Against Severe Disease

Across every interim analysis - adults, teens 12–15, children 5–11, toddlers - there was never statistically significant efficacy against severe covid-19. The adult study showed one severe case in the vaccine group versus three in the placebo group. The claimed “66% efficacy against severe disease” was statistically indistinguishable from random chance.

3. No Proven Efficacy Against Death

After six months of follow-up, there was – supposedly - one covid death in the vaccine group and two in the placebo group. Statistically meaningless. And this was using Pfizer’s reported death numbers.

4. The Vaccine You Got Wasn’t the One Tested

Cotton documented that Pfizer used two different manufacturing processes - Process 1 for the clinical trial product, Process 2 for the commercial product distributed to the public. The vaccine that went into hundreds of millions of arms was not the same product that generated the (already dubious) 95% efficacy number. As she testified in her final post on X: “You were administered a product for which there were absolutely no results, neither of efficacy nor of tolerance.”

5. What Cotton Didn’t Know Initially - And What Made It Worse

Christine Cotton did not have access to all the Pfizer Papers at the time she prepared her initial report. She did not know that the War Room/DailyClout team would later find, through thousands of hours of combing through Case Report Forms, that Pfizer had systematically underreported mortality in the very data used to justify the largest mass vaccination campaign in human history. Neither did she know about the 3.7-fold cardiovascular death signal.

When the researchers relayed these findings to her, the situation went from catastrophic to criminal. Her previous conclusion - that there was no proven mortality benefit - was based on the sanitised public data. The real data was far worse.

The 11 Deaths: How Pfizer Hid the Real Body Count

Here’s where the story gets even darker - and where the War Room/Daily Clout research team made a discovery that Christine Cotton herself didn’t have access to when she prepared her initial excellent analysis.

What Pfizer Told VRBPAC: Six Deaths

At the 10 December 2020 US Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (“VRBPAC”) meeting - the meeting that determined whether the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorisation (“EUA”) - Pfizer presented data showing six deaths in the clinical trial. Two in the vaccinated arm, four in the placebo arm. This created the appearance of a mortality advantage for the vaccine: fewer deaths among the vaccinated.

What Pfizer’s Own Documents Revealed: Eleven Deaths

The War Room/Daily Clout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project - whose core team continue to this day as the Pandemic Investigation Project - spent years combing through the 55,000 pages of court-released Pfizer documents. Their forensic work (documented in Michels et al., 2023) was painstaking: thousands of subject Case Report Forms, each running thousands of pages. What they found fundamentally rewrites the history of the EUA.

According to Pfizer’s own documentation, there were 11 deaths - not six - in the clinical trial at the time of the EUA: six in the vaccinated group and five in the placebo group. Essentially, an equal number of deaths in both arms. No mortality benefit whatsoever.

The five unreported deaths were not a rounding error. They were the difference between a vaccine that appeared to reduce mortality and one that demonstrably did not.

The NEJM Paper Perpetuated the False Number

The incorrect death count wasn’t confined to a PowerPoint slide at VRBPAC. The same false “six-death” figure was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, ina paper by Polack et al. (2020). This paper was cited thousands of times, used to justify mandates and held up as the gold standard of vaccine safety evidence. It was wrong. And Pfizer knew it.

Christine Cotton Didn’t Have the Full Picture at the Time

This is a crucial point: Christine Cotton’s already-devastating analysis of the Pfizer trial was prepared before the full document release was analysed by the War Room/Daily Clout team. She did not know - could not have known - that the death count presented to regulators was so far off. When the team relayed their finding of the unreported deaths to her, it confirmed what she had suspected, but made the situation far worse than even her rigorous biostatistical critique had revealed.

She had already proven there was no statistically significant mortality benefit. The hidden deaths proved the trial data presented to the FDA was not merely insufficient - it was fraudulent.

The Michels et al. Forensic Death Analysis: What the Peer-Reviewed Paper Found

The Michels et al. (2023) paper, published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, represents the first independent forensic analysis of the 38 subject deaths in Pfizer’s 6-Month Interim Report - conducted by researchers entirely unaffiliated with the trial sponsor.

Key Findings

• No mortality benefit in the placebo-controlled period. During the first 20 weeks of the trial - the only period that was genuinely placebo-controlled - there was no significant difference between the number of deaths in the vaccinated versus placebo arms. The vaccine didn’t save lives. It didn’t even show a trend toward saving lives.

• A 3.7-fold cardiovascular death signal that Pfizer buried. The analysis found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in deaths due to cardiovascular events in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to placebo controls. This was a massive safety signal. Pfizer did not report it to regulators.

• Deaths continued in the vaccinated group after Week 20. After the EUA was granted and placebo subjects were unblinded and offered the vaccine, deaths among the still-unvaccinated cohort slowed and eventually plateaued. But deaths in the originally vaccinated group continued at the same rate. The curves tell a story no press release could spin away.

• Data inconsistencies between Pfizer’s own documents. The forensic analysis revealed discrepancies between the subject data in the 6-Month Interim Report and publications authored by Pfizer/BioNTech trial site administrators. These weren’t minor clerical errors - they were systematic inconsistencies in the reporting of deaths and adverse events.

The 38 Deaths in Context

The trial involved 44,060 subjects equally randomised to vaccine or saline placebo. The 38 deaths analysed spanned 27 July 2020 (the start of Phase 2/3) through to 13 March 2021 (the data end date of the 6-Month Interim Report). In a properly conducted trial with a product that doesn’t cause harm, you’d expect deaths to be roughly equal between arms and to follow expected background mortality patterns. What the Michels team found was neither.

The Hospital Treatment Protocols: Where the Real Killing Happened

Here’s the part of the story that gets even less attention than the vaccine data: a staggering proportion of covid deaths occurred in hospitals - and the treatment protocols deployed in those hospitals were catastrophic.

The evidence converges from multiple directions:

• Mechanical ventilation was deployed aggressively despite mounting evidence of harm. The standard protocol called for early intubation, but the mortality rate for ventilated covid patients was abysmal - and the pathophysiology of covid pneumonia (primarily a vascular and clotting disorder, not a typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (“ARDS”) presentation) made high-pressure ventilation especially dangerous. Ventilators were blowing out already-damaged lungs.

• Denial of early treatment was official policy. The mantra was: “there’s no treatment, go home and come back when you can’t breathe.”By the time patients returned, they were in cytokine storm - exactly when aggressive interventions become least effective and most dangerous. Ivermectin, which has a well-established safety profile over decades of use and showed strong signals of efficacy in multiple studies, was actively suppressed. Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) was demonised. The message was: wait until you’re crashing, then we’ll intubate you.

• Remdesivir was pushed as standard of care despite the WHO SOLIDARITY trial showing no mortality benefit. It’s an intravenous (“IV”) antiviral that costs thousands per course - and it didn’t save lives.

• Sedation protocols for ventilated patients were extreme. The combination of deep sedation, paralysis and high-pressure ventilation created a perfect storm for organ failure.

• Antibiotic denial compounded the problem. Rancourt’s (2024) hypothesis is that much of the mortality came from transmissionless self-infection bacterial pneumonias induced by biological stress. This points to a grim irony: patients were denied the one class of drugs (antibiotics) that might have actually helped, while being given drugs and interventions that made things worse.

The hospitals became death traps. Not because the virus was unstoppable, but because the standard of care was lethal.

Connecting the Threads

The pieces fit together with a coherence that the official narrative never achieved:

1. The clinical trials never demonstrated mortality benefit. Christine Cotton proved this using Pfizer’s own published data. The Michels et al. forensic analysis subsequently proved it was even worse: the death count presented to the FDA in 2020 was fraudulent. Six deaths were declared (two in the vaccine group) when Pfizer’s own documents showed eleven (six in the vaccine group).

2. The NEJM paper that launched a multi-billion-dollar campaign was based on false data. The paper, by Polack et al. (2020), reported six deaths. Pfizer’s internal documents show eleven. The EUA was granted based on wrong information.

3. The real-world data shows deaths increased with vaccination. See Okoro et al. (2025) using WHO data; Rancourt et al. (2024) using all-cause mortality across 125 countries. Independent teams, different methodologies, same conclusion.

4. The hospital protocols were deadly. Mechanical ventilation, remdesivir, sedation cocktails and denial of early treatment combined to create an iatrogenic catastrophe.

5. The vaccine rollouts were temporally associated with mortality spikes in every region with sufficient data - and no country showed a mortality reduction after vaccination.

Folic acid is not the same as folate.  Folate, or vitamin B9, is a naturally occurring molecule found in foods like spinach and liver, while folic acid is a synthetic, oxidised version.

The human body has difficulty converting folic acid into a usable form, leading to a buildup of unmetabolised folic acid in the blood. 

The reason given for adding folic acid to flour is to protect pregnant women and their unborn children from to help prevent neural tube defects due to folate deficiency. 

However, unmetabolised folic acid can block the receptor that transports folate to the brain, potentially leading to cerebral folate insufficiency, particularly in pregnant women, developing babies and young children.

“By forcing synthetic folic acid into the circulation , fortification may be producing windows of cerebral folate insufficiency in exactly the people it is meant to protect,” Dr. Clare Craig says.

From 13 December 2026, the UK government is mandating mass medication of the public with synthetic folic acid added to non-wholemeal wheat flour. Dr. Clare Craig has been publishing a series of articles to explain what we need to know about folic acid.  The following is Part Three of her series.

What you need to know about Folic Acid Part Three: Folic Acid Is Not Folate

By Dr. Clare Craig, as published by Health ethics Advocacy and Research Team (“HART”) on 11 June 2026

In the previous article, I explained how the body only needs 100 microgrammes of folate to replace daily losses. The claimed recommended daily allowance of 400 microgrammes a day only came about once industry was involved in setting the allowance. This higher level is not achievable on any diet and makes the case for supplementation with folic acid for everyone. But it is not evidence-based.

Almost everyone believes that folic acid is simply another form of folate. One occurs in food, the other is manufactured, both end up in the same biochemical pathways - so why should it matter which one enters the body?

Folates found in spinach, lentils, liver, eggs or breast milk are chemically reduced molecules that the body can put to use straight away. The molecule being added to British flour is not. Folic acid is the oxidised, chemically stable version, built to survive storage and baking. In order to convert it into the reduced form that the body can use, it must pass through an enzyme, dihydrofolate reductase (“DHFR”), which is very inefficient and creates a bottleneck. The consequence is that the unnatural folic acid chemical circulates in the blood in its unmetabolized state for many hours.

The Human Bottleneck

In 2009, Bailey and Ayling published a careful study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, using fresh human liver obtained at surgery or from organ donors. Human DHFR turned out to be extraordinarily slow. It processed synthetic folic acid 1,300 times more slowly than the natural folate it evolved to handle – roughly 0.08 per cent of its normal efficiency.

The comparison with the laboratory rat is worth dwelling on because the rat is the species on which most folic acid safety testing has been done. The human enzyme was, on average, 56 times slower than the rat’s at processing folic acid, with a range across individuals of 34 to 164 times slower. Different people’s livers varied fivefold in the rate at which the enzyme worked, which means an identical dose can have very different consequences in two different people.

Once the enzyme reaches full capacity or saturates, the backlog of unmetabolized folic acid (“UMFA”) starts to build. Bailey and Ayling calculated that a normal adult liver begins to saturate at around 330 microgrammes of folic acid. A single 400-microgramme tablet, or a single serving of fortified cereal, pushes it past that point in one go.

The Molecule That Shouldn’t Be There

A nationally representative US study by Pfeiffer and colleagues, drawing on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, found detectable UMFA in 38 to 42 per cent of American adults even after a fast of ten hours or more. Close to half the adult population carries synthetic folic acid around in the bloodstream between meals.

The original rationale for fortification assumed that folic acid would promptly become folate. Instead, a great deal of it lingers, unconverted, and the lingering interferes directly with getting real folate to the place that needs it most.

A Receptor Built For Folate

The brain needs a steady supply of folate, and it gets it through a specialised transporter, folate receptor alpha, which concentrates folate against a gradient so that the cerebrospinal fluid normally holds two to three times more than the blood. The difficulty is that folic acid binds this receptor too – more tightly than natural folate does - and then it does not let go.

So, when blood folic acid rises, after a supplement or a bowl of fortified cereal or a sandwich made with fortified flour, the receptor becomes effectively blocked by UMFA, and the active transport of real folate into the brain stops. Cerebrospinal fluid folate falls and stays low until the liver has slowly worked through the backlog and cleared the receptor.

The irony is hard to miss. By forcing synthetic folic acid into the circulation, fortification may be producing windows of cerebral folate insufficiency in exactly the people it is meant to protect: pregnant women, developing babies and young children, during the hours when folate most needs to be reaching the developing brain. This is the most likely explanation for the awkward finding in the first article: that as folic acid use rose through the 1990s, the fall in neural tube defects slowed rather than quickened.

The Arithmetic of Pregnancy

Given the emphasis on pregnancy as a time when folate is important, it is worth us pausing to ask the most important question - how much extra folate does a pregnancy actually require? There are three aspects to consider: the folate built into the growing baby, into the placenta and into the extra blood, uterus and breasts of the mother. Using published estimates of foetal, placental and maternal folate accumulation, the total physically incorporated into new tissue across the whole of pregnancy is of the order of a few milligrammes. That works out at less than 20 microgrammes per day of pregnancy. A woman having a normal diet plus a single 400 microgramme folic acid supplement each day for three months before pregnancy and until the baby is born would be taking in around 146 milligrammes of synthetic folic acid. The difference is stark. Add the exposure from fortified flour on top, and it becomes more extreme still. The developing baby’s folate receptors will be flooded with a molecule that binds tightly to receptors and blocks them.

Pregnancy is not the only risk babies face. Formula-fed infants receive two to five times their daily folate requirement at every feed, because infant formula is fortified with synthetic folic acid far above the natural folate content of breast milk, which sits at around 80 to 85 microgrammes per litre, almost all of it as natural methylfolate. A randomised trial that swapped natural L-methylfolate for synthetic folic acid in infant formula found markedly lower circulating UMFA and better folate status in the infants who received the natural form, with no difference in growth.

Why Synthetic, And Not Folate?

Food is all that is needed for adequate folate, including in pregnancy. Where breastfeeding is not possible, formula does need folate. Natural L-methylfolate, the reduced, methylated form the body actually uses, the form found in orange juice, lentils and spinach. It can be added to tablets, to formula, to cereal, to flour. It needs no slow enzyme step. Why doesn’t everyone use that instead?

The answer is partly shelf life. Folic acid is cheap and almost indestructible; methylfolate is less stable, needs more care in formulation and costs a little more. Because it is less stable, there is less certainty about what dose is being given. The other difference is cost. Fortifying a loaf with the synthetic molecule costs a few pence less than fortifying it with the natural one. The difference for a tin of infant formula is the same order of magnitude.

The growing market in methylfolate supplements is itself a quiet admission of the problem. Clinicians increasingly recommend the reduced form precisely because it bypasses the bottleneck. It matters most for the large minority least able to handle the synthetic kind. In the UK and Europe, around four in ten people carry one copy of a common variant in a gene called MTHFR, leaving the enzyme that makes the body’s active, methylated folate working at reduced capacity. For them above all, being handed a synthetic precursor that must be converted before it can be used – rather than the active vitamin itself – is a poor bargain.

Back to 1875

You might think it is unlawful to add a synthetic product to organic flour. On 13 December, it becomes compulsory despite the fact that on the present evidence, nine babies are lost for every neural tube defect prevented.

The body did not evolve to handle 400 microgrammes of oxidised synthetic folic acid per serving. The enzyme that converts it cannot keep up with the doses being delivered. The receptor that carries folate to the brain is blocked by the surplus. Infants are being fed several times their requirement at every feed. And the NHS warns that whole categories of people must avoid folic acid altogether: those on methotrexate, those with undiagnosed B12 deficiency, those with certain cancers and kidney conditions.

In 1875, Parliament made it a criminal offence to put anything into bread that was injurious to health. That principle has never been repealed. It has simply been ignored.

Please sign THIS petition to Parliament to stop the addition of folic acid to UK flour.

To find out more about folic acid, read THIS website or listen to the interviews HERE and HERE. 

About the Author

Dr. Clare Craig is a British Diagnostic Pathologist and medical researcher who worked in the NHS for 15 years before becoming a Consultant Pathologist in 2009.  She is best known for her covid-19 research.  She has worked pro bono since May 2020 to analyse covid pandemic data and distil evidence for lay audiences.

She is the author of two books: ‘Expired: Covid the untold story’ (2023) and ‘Spiked: A shot in the dark’ (2025).

The Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) is requesting over $1.4 billion in funding for its Ebola situation.  Before the money is handed over, serious questions must be asked about corruption and profiteering.

The DRC has a history of losing $10-15 billion annually to fraud and government corruption.  Furthermore, the previous Ebola outbreak in 2018-2020 created an "Ebola business" with inflated contracts and kickbacks.

The accuracy of the current Ebola case numbers and speed-of-spread claims should be questioned - they may be exaggerated or even fabricated to solicit the billions of dollars in aid.

Congo's 'Ebola Business' and $15 Billion Annual Fraud

By Jon Fleetwood, 26 June 2026

As the United States moves toward requesting more than $1.4 billion in additional funding for the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Ebola situation, two serious questions about fraud must be asked from the start.

The first is how much of the money that arrives will be lost to corruption and profiteering inside the response.

The second, more critical question is how much fraud is being committed to secure that funding in the first place, including whether official case numbers, death counts and claims of rapid spread are being inflated or manipulated to justify the large sums being requested.

That question is especially significant, given that the US Military has confirmed in peer-review that Ebola PCR tests - used to “confirm” infection counts - produce contradictory results on the same human samples.

Moreover, the genetic sequence order of PCR primers and probes are neither verified by the manufacturer nor by the person administering the test, raising questions about accuracy and how easily the tests can give false readings or be manipulated (see my X/Grok conversation about this).

Congo’s recent history makes both questions unavoidable.

Since American taxpayers are the ones ultimately being asked to fund it, don’t they deserve direct and honest answers?

The US State Department has already announced more than $270 million in direct Ebola response funding.

The CDC has already activated $107 million in emergency funding for Ebola response.

All of this, while the US is funding gain-of-function experiments making mutant Ebola resistant to drugs.

A Country Losing $10–15 Billion a Year to Fraud

In 2015, President Joseph Kabila’s anti-corruption adviser stated publicly that Congo was losing $10 to $15 billion per year to fraud, evasion and leaks - an amount close to twice the national budget at the time. He said the problem existed at some of the highest levels of government.

This systemic corruption has continued for years.

The ‘Ebola Business’ Precedent

During the purported 2018–2020 Ebola outbreak, the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars created what many on the ground openly called the “Ebola business.”

Investigations documented inflated contracts, kickbacks, exaggerated per diems paid to security forces and other schemes.

Some communities and responders believed certain actors had a financial incentive to prolong the crisis because it kept the money coming.

Attacks on health workers were partly fuelled by this perception.

A UN-commissioned review warned that these practices would damage future aid efforts.

The Current Numbers and the Funding Request

Authorities are currently reporting a major Ebola outbreak. They claim it is spreading quickly, with official figures citing well over 1,000 confirmed cases and hundreds of deaths since mid-May. These numbers are being used to justify urgent, large-scale international funding, including the more than $1.4 billion now being sought from Congress.

The central question is: How much can these numbers be trusted?

When a country has a documented history of losing $10 to $15 billion annually to fraud and when the previous Ebola response produced a clear “Ebola business” in which financial incentives existed to keep the crisis active, it is logical to ask whether the current case counts and speed-of-spread claims are fully accurate - or whether they are being exaggerated to attract billions in new aid.

No independent investigation has yet proven that the 2026 numbers are fabricated or significantly inflated.  At the same time, no transparent, independent verification has been made public that would eliminate reasonable doubt in an environment where fraud has long been systemic and where large funding creates powerful incentives.

The Two Questions That Demand Answers - How much of the requested funding is being lost to kickbacks, inflated contracts and profiteering once it reaches Congo? - How much of the official outbreak narrative - including the case numbers being used to justify the money - is itself the product of fraud designed to secure that funding?

These are not minor concerns.

They go to the heart of whether the scale of the crisis and the amount of funding being requested rest on reliable information or on the same patterns of manipulation seen in the past.

Until there is strong, independent verification of the numbers and robust safeguards against both types of fraud, scepticism about how much of Congo’s Ebola figures are real - and how much is being shaped to secure funding - is not only justified but necessary.

The history of the “Ebola business” and $10–15 billion in annual fraud makes anything less a serious failure of oversight.

Further reading from Jon Fleetwood:

- Mutant Drug-Resistant Ebola Created by U.S., China, U.K., Germany Just Before Africa Outbreak: Journal 'npj Viruses' - The PCR Black Box: Positive Tests Rely on Unverified Primers That Could Be Wrong - U.S. Updates 5 Ebola Preparedness Programs in January 2026 After 2-Year Silence—Just Months Before Congo Outbreak - U.S. Military Confirms Ebola PCR Tests Produce Contradictory Results on the Same Human Samples: 'Scientific Reports' Journal - Ebola Vaccine That 'Sheds' in 31% of Vaccinated Given to Colorado Healthcare Workers Just Down the Road from New Bat Lab About the Author

Jon Fleetwood is an American investigative journalist, author and independent analyst known for his work on health policy, biotechnology and political narratives. He publishes articles on his Substack page ‘Jon Fleetwood’.

He is the author of ‘An American Revival: Why American Christianity Is Failing & How to Fix It’ and co-author of ‘What We’re Afraid to Ask: 365 Days of Healing for Adult Survivors of Childhood Abuse’.

In the following essay, Lies are Unbekoming summarises 12 medical tests that are commonly used and what they really do and don’t show.

From cancer screening to PCR, these tests over diagnose either through false positives or by using criteria and thresholds set by committees which have financial relationships with drug and device manufacturers. 

Over diagnosis leads to healthy people being labelled as sick, or potentially sick in the future, and so some form of medical intervention and/or monitoring is required.

The tests themselves can cause harm.  For example, repeated radiation exposure from CT scans and mammograms can cause cancer and colonoscopies can cause complications such as bleeding, perforation and even death. 

And once a person is diagnosed, even if incorrectly, it initiates further tests and/or a treatment pathway, in some cases for life.  It goes without saying that treating people for a disease they do not have causes both psychological and physical harm.

But the cycle of testing and treatment of healthy people continues because all the testing and subsequent unnecessary surgeries, medications and other procedures (in misdiagnosed healthy people) generate billions of dollars in revenue for the medical industry.

The 12 Screenings That Manufacture the Patients They Claim to Find

By Lies are Unbekoming

Table of Contents

- The Pattern Across the Programmes - The Frame - Group A: Threshold Manipulation - The Number Creates The Disease- 1. Bone Density (DEXA) and the Manufactured Pre-Disease - 2. Cholesterol - 3. Blood Sugar - “Prediabetes” - Group B: Overdiagnosis - Finding What Would Never Have Harmed You- 4. Mammography - 5. Colonoscopy - 6. CT Scan: The Screening Test That Causes the Disease It Looks For - Group C: The Cascade - The Positive Result That Escalates Into Iatrogenic Harm- 7. PSA Testing - 8. Prostate Biopsy - 9. Pap Smear and HPV Testing - Beyond the Threshold: When the Marker Is the Construct - Group D: Tests That Measure Nothing Real - The Marker Is A Construct- 10. PCR - 11. Antibody Tests - 12. BRCA Testing and Prophylactic Mastectomy - What the Twelve Have in Common- How to Explain This to a Six-Year-Old - Closing - References The Pattern Across the Programmes

In 2022, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of the NordICC trial - the first randomised controlled study of colonoscopy screening ever conducted. Over 84,000 people were followed for ten years. The trial found an 18% reduction in cancer incidence and no significant reduction in cancer deaths. To prevent a single case of colorectal cancer, 455 people had to be invited for screening. To prevent a single death, the numbers were statistically indistinguishable from zero.¹

This is the pattern.

Across the major screening programmes - mammography, PSA, Pap, colonoscopy, lung CT - when the question is whether the screened population actually outlives the unscreened population, the benefit largely disappears.² The statistic the programmes advertise is disease-specific mortality: deaths from the disease the test is looking for. The statistic they bury is all-cause mortality: whether the screened group, taken as a whole, lives longer. The two numbers are not the same. You can reduce deaths from one disease while total deaths remain flat - because treatment has killed as many people as the disease prevented, or because the disease you found was never going to kill anyone.²

The screened do not live longer than the unscreened. They are more likely to spend their remaining years monitored, biopsied, cut and medicated for conditions that would not have harmed them. This essay catalogues twelve tests that produce that conversion, organised by the four mechanisms through which it is achieved.

The Frame

Five concepts make the rest of this essay readable.

Disease-specific versus all-cause mortality. A screening programme can reduce deaths from breast cancer while total deaths remain unchanged. This happens when treatment kills as many people as the disease - through surgical complications, radiation-induced secondary cancers, cardiovascular effects of chemotherapy or the cascade of follow-up procedures that screening triggers. Only all-cause mortality reveals whether the programme, taken as a whole, extended life.² Trials that report disease-specific reductions without corresponding all-cause reductions are reporting a redistribution of deaths.

Lead-time bias. A cancer destined to kill at age 70 appears as a three-year survival if found at age 67 through symptoms, and a seven-year survival if found at age 63 through screening. The patient dies at the same age in both cases - the clock simply started earlier. Five-year survival statistics, the most commonly cited evidence for screening success, are inevitably improved by earlier detection, even when no life is extended by a single day.² Kidney cancer five-year survival improved from 50% to 60% as imaging found more small tumours; the death rate from kidney cancer remained unchanged.²

Length bias. Aggressive cancers grow fast, become symptomatic between screening intervals and reach the patient through the clinic rather than the screening room. Indolent cancers linger for years in the detectable phase, making them easy targets. The cancers that screening preferentially catches are the ones least likely to kill. The ones most likely to kill evade it.²

Overdiagnosis and the autopsy reservoir behind it. Approximately 40-70% of older men have prostate cancer at autopsy, while only about 3% die from it.² Up to 39% of middle-aged women show evidence of breast cancer at autopsy; the lifetime risk of dying from it is under 4%.² Thyroid cancer appears in 36–100% of carefully examined autopsies, depending on how many microscope slides the pathologist prepares.² Polyps are found in 32–50% of older adults; only 5% develop colorectal cancer.³ The reservoir of detectable-but-harmless abnormality is vast. Every screening test dips into it. Every person pulled from it becomes a cancer patient who can only be harmed by treatment, because they were never at risk.

The threshold. The cutoff that separates well from sick is set by a committee, not by biology. In every screening category, the threshold has been lowered - by panels whose members hold financial relationships with the manufacturers of the drugs and devices used to treat the redefined condition.⁴ The 1988 cholesterol panel. The 1994 World Health Organisation (“WHO”) bone density panel.⁵ The 2003 American Diabetes Association threshold for impaired fasting glucose.⁶ The 2017 American College of Cardiology hypertension revision.⁷ The lowered PSA cutoff. Each revision converts millions of well people into patients overnight. No one inside their body changed.

The early-detection objection - that finding disease earlier must, by intuition, help - fails on this evidence. It assumes that everything labelled cancer or pre-cancer will progress; the autopsy data say otherwise. It assumes that finding more is finding harm prevented; the mortality data say otherwise. It assumes that the people setting the thresholds are disinterested; the disclosures say otherwise.

Group A: Threshold Manipulation - The Number Creates The Disease

The first three screenings illustrate the cleanest mechanism in the catalogue. The cutoff changes while the body does not, and the well become the sick by committee vote. The drug to treat the redefined condition is manufactured by the company whose representative sat on the panel that lowered it.

1. Bone Density (DEXA) and the Manufactured Pre-Disease

In 1994, a World Health Organisation panel redefined osteoporosis based on bone mineral density measured by DEXA scan.⁵ The reference standard was the bone density of a healthy 35-year-old woman. By this definition, any woman whose bones had decreased from their youthful peak - which describes virtually every woman over 50 - could be diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis. The condition “osteopenia” did not exist as a clinical category before this redefinition.⁸ Internal Merck memos described the company’s excitement about the new diagnostic category and the market it would create for Fosamax.⁸

The DEXA scan measures bone mineral density. That is all it measures. It cannot assess the collagen matrix - the protein scaffolding on which the minerals deposit. A baby has very low bone mineral density and rarely fractures. An elderly woman with osteoporosis may have adequate minerals deposited in the wrong locations, including her arteries. Bone strength is a property of the matrix as much as of the minerals; the DEXA captures only one of the two and is treated as if it captured both.³

Bisphosphonate drugs raise the number that DEXA measures. They do not so much prevent fractures as change the kind of fracture. Documented harms include osteonecrosis of the jaw - the jawbone literally dying - and atypical femur fractures, where the thigh bone snaps under minimal stress in patients taking drugs prescribed to prevent fractures.⁹,¹⁰ The absolute fracture reduction in randomised trials is 1–2%. Fifty to a hundred women must be treated for years to prevent a single hip fracture, while every one of them carries the risks above.⁸

Related: What to Ask Before Your Next Bone Density Scan, Lies are Unbekoming, 7 June 2026

2. Cholesterol

The cholesterol threshold for statin prescription has been lowered repeatedly since 1988 by panels whose members held financial relationships with the manufacturers of the drugs being recommended.⁴ The 2004 National Cholesterol Education Programme guidelines tripled the number of Americans classified as needing treatment. The Washington Post reported the panel’s undisclosed conflicts. The guidelines remained unchanged.⁴

The cholesterol hypothesis has the unusual property of being unfalsifiable. The MRFIT trial followed 361,662 men and found that those with cholesterol below 170 had double the death rate from cerebral haemorrhage of those with higher levels; below 160, the death rate quadrupled.¹¹ The Sydney Diet Heart Study, recovered and reanalysed by Christopher Ramsden, found that men who replaced saturated fats with vegetable oils had a 62% higher death rate.¹² The Minnesota Coronary Survey, hidden for decades, showed that for every 30 points cholesterol decreased, mortality increased by 22%.¹¹ None of this has altered the trajectory of the threshold or the prescription.

The statin absolute risk reduction in primary prevention - people without existing heart disease - is approximately 1–2% over five years.¹³ Advocates present this as a 30–40% reduction by using relative risk. The numbers describe the same trial result. The first is what the patient experiences; the second is what the press release says. Patients are not shown the first.

Statins raise blood glucose. The Crestor label states that statin-induced glucose elevations “may exceed the threshold for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.” The warning was added decades after approval, after the diabetes signal had become too large to ignore.¹¹ The statin prescribed for the lowered cholesterol threshold thus produces the prediabetes captured by the next lowered threshold.

Related: The Great Cholesterol Con (2007), Lies are Unbekoming, 12 May 2026

3. Blood Sugar - “Prediabetes”

In 2003, the American Diabetes Association lowered the threshold for impaired fasting glucose from 110 mg/dL to 100 mg/dL.⁶ The category “prediabetes,” as it functions clinically today, did not exist before this revision. Millions of additional Americans were added to the surveillance rolls. None of their blood sugar levels changed. A committee’s definition of normal changed.

Prediabetes is not diabetes. Many people classified as prediabetic will never develop diabetes. The label nevertheless creates patients - patients who are monitored, tested, counselled and increasingly prescribed metformin for a number on a laboratory report. Metformin causes gastrointestinal distress in up to 25% of patients.¹⁴ These symptoms are typically addressed with additional medication or attributed to irritable bowel syndrome, which becomes its own diagnostic pathway.

The label persists across the life cycle. A woman diagnosed with gestational diabetes during pregnancy - using the same threshold-lowering mechanism, which catches around 18% of pregnant women on current criteria - returns six weeks postpartum for a repeat glucose tolerance test.¹⁵ The test is unchanged. Her physiology is largely unchanged. She is re-labelled “glucose intolerant” or “prediabetic” and enters lifelong annual surveillance. The temporary pregnancy label becomes a permanent metabolic identity.¹⁵

The fasting insulin test, which would actually reveal metabolic dysfunction, is rarely ordered.¹¹ The fasting glucose, which lags behind insulin dysregulation by years, is the screening test of record. The earlier marker is upstream and dietary; the later marker is downstream and pharmaceutical. The system selects for the marker that supports its intervention.

Related: The Mother Who Remains: How Medicine Captures Women After Birth (Part 8), Lies are Unbekoming, 30 December 2025

Group B: Overdiagnosis - Finding What Would Never Have Harmed You

The next three screenings do not invent the condition by adjusting a threshold. They find conditions that exist by the pathology textbook’s definition but would never have caused symptoms or death. Overdiagnosis is the bulk of what these programmes produce, not a marginal side-effect of them.

4. Mammography

The 25-year Canadian National Breast Screening Study, published in The BMJ in 2014, followed nearly 90,000 women. It found no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammographic screening.¹⁶ The 2013 Cochrane Review of randomised trials reached the same conclusion.¹⁷ The relative risk for all-cause mortality in well-conducted trials is 1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.04) - no significant difference between the screened and the unscreened.¹⁷

What screening does find, reliably, is ductal carcinoma in situ (“DCIS”). DCIS was a rare diagnosis before the 1980s. It now accounts for a significant proportion of all screen-detected breast cancers. Studies following women whose DCIS was missed at biopsy show that 75–90% never develop invasive cancer over 10–20 years.¹⁸ The condition is treated nonetheless - with surgery, radiation and, in some cases, chemotherapy. Nearly half a million women have been diagnosed and treated for DCIS since widespread mammography began.¹⁸ The cancers they were treated for would, in the great majority of cases, never have harmed them.

Up to 60% of women who undergo annual mammograms for a decade experience at least one false positive.¹⁸ Each false positive triggers additional imaging, biopsy and the psychological burden of waiting. A single mammogram delivers radiation equivalent to approximately 100 chest X-rays, concentrated on compressed breast tissue.¹⁸ Over a decade of annual screening that is 1,000 chest X-rays’ worth of ionising radiation aimed at the tissue the screening is supposedly protecting. A 2012 BMJ study found that women with BRCA variants who underwent mammograms before age 30 had an increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to those who did not.¹⁹

Related: What to Ask Before Your Next Mammogram, Lies are Unbekoming, 10 April 2026

5. Colonoscopy

The NordICC trial, with which this essay opened, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2022. It followed over 84,000 people for ten years and found an 18% reduction in cancer incidence and no significant reduction in cancer deaths.¹ Until 2022, gastroenterology had no randomised trial supporting the procedure it had been recommending for decades.

The paradox is structural. Polyps are found in 32–50% of older adults. About 5% of people develop colorectal cancer.³ The vast majority of polyps removed during colonoscopy were never destined to cause harm. The procedure removes them anyway, and each removal leaves a wound in the protective mucosal layer. A 2019 study in Gastroenterology proposed an additional mechanism - iatrogenic tumour seeding via the scope itself, where cancerous cells stick to the biopsy forceps or are aspirated into the scope’s channel and redeposited elsewhere in the colon as the scope is withdrawn.³

The bowel preparation devastates the microbial ecology of the colon. Polyethylene glycol prep causes an “instant and substantial change” in gut microbial balance.³ Beneficial populations decrease significantly. The microbiome rebounds over weeks or months but may never return precisely to its original composition. Repeated colonoscopies across decades may leave the colon both microbiologically disturbed and physically scarred - creating, plausibly, the conditions in which polyps continue to form.

Complication rates from a Canadian population study of 97,204 outpatient colonoscopies: significant bleeding in 1 in 600; perforation in 1 in 1,200; death from the procedure in 1 in 14,000.³ These are surgical-intervention rates, not the rates of a benign screening test. The procedure generates approximately $4 billion annually in the United States.³

Related: The Colonoscopy Cartel: How Routine Screening Became a Business Model, Lies are Unbekoming, 20 July 2025

The body does not need 400 microgrammes of folate a day as supplement bottles, cereal boxes and government leaflets worldwide claim.  The body only needs about a quarter of that amount.

How has the recommended daily allowance (“RDA”) increased so significantly over the years? Big Pharma and other supplement providers had their say.

From 13 December 2026, the UK government is mandating mass medication of the public with synthetic folic acid added to non-wholemeal wheat flour. Dr. Clare Craig has been publishing a series of articles to explain what we need to know about folic acid.  The following is Part Two of her series.

What You Need To Know About Folic Acid Part Two: How 100 Micrograms Became 400

By Dr. Clare Craig, as published by Health ethics Advocacy and Research Team (“HART”) on 11 June 2026

Ask almost any doctor how much folate an adult needs to eat, and the answer will be 400 microgrammes per day. That figure is printed on supplement bottles, prenatal tablets, cereal boxes and government leaflets the world over, and it is repeated so reliably that it has taken on the authority of a biological fact.

The body does not need 400 microgrammes of folate a day. The real figure is almost exactly four times smaller, and the story of how the smaller number became the larger is a story of double-counting and industry influence on decision-making.

The First Panel

In 1989, the United States National Research Council published the tenth edition of its Recommended Dietary Allowances. Before then, the estimate of folate required had not been evidence-based but now there was funding to carry out the work to measure what the requirement was. The body loses about 50 microgrammes a day (μg/day). That is what we need. The evidence base suggested that 100 μg/day provided a substantial margin above deficiency. The eventual recommendation of 180–200 μg/day therefore represented not a demonstrated biological need for that quantity of folate but a precautionary adjustment for the assumed incomplete absorption of naturally occurring food folates. 

However, while folate from animal sources is fully absorbed, folate from fruit and vegetables was reckoned at the time to only be about 50 per cent absorbed. On that basis, the panel set the allowance at 200 microgrammes for adult men and 180 for women. This doubling was to allow for the lower availability of the plant folate that made up most of the diet. Given that meat, eggs and dairy all contain folate that is fully available, it would be hard to find any diet that did not contain sufficient folate.

The Hundred-Microgramme Body

Folate is essential to life. Every cell uses it to build RNA and DNA and to switch genes on and off, and rapidly dividing tissues depend on it utterly. In those with a severe deficiency, the result can be severe anaemia and worse. Because it is so essential to every cell, the body is built to hold on tightly to the folate we have. It is not built to be at risk if we do not eat a predictable diet.

The liver alone stores somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 microgrammes. Against a daily loss of around 100 microgrammes, that is months of reserve with no intake at all. The kidneys have receptors to actively reclaim folate to stop it from being lost in the urine. When folate runs short, those receptors increase in number so that even less escapes. In pregnancy, urinary loss also falls. The body keeps back what the baby, the placenta and the mother will need to grow. A nutrient this fundamental to cell function would be a reckless thing to waste, and it is not wasted.

The consequence is that reaching a deficient state is a challenge. It generally takes prolonged poor intake, malabsorption or alcohol dependency to produce it.

So how did we go from the 100 microgrammes that we need each day to replace losses to the claim that we need 400 microgrammes a day – an amount that no diet could ever achieve.

The Second Panel

Nine years after the first panel, in 1998, the Institute of Medicine produced the successor report. Alongside the usual US federal agencies, the 1998 panel was underwritten by a new source – the Dietary Reference Intakes Corporate Donors’ Fund. The donors were listed beneath it: Roche Vitamins, Mead Johnson Nutrition Group, Daiichi Fine Chemicals, Kemin Foods, M&M Mars, Weider Nutrition Group, and the Natural Source Vitamin E Association. Three of the seven had a direct commercial interest in the answer. Roche Vitamins was, at the time, the largest manufacturer of synthetic folic acid in the world. Daiichi Fine Chemicals also made it. Mead Johnson made infant formula, fortified with it.

In 1989, the folate allowance had been set by an independent panel of government-funded scientists. In 1998, this panel, part-funded by the manufacturers of synthetic folic acid, doubled it. They used the same reasoning that the 1989 panel had used to double the requirement from 100 microgrammes of absorbed folate to 200 microgrammes from fruits and vegetables. Only this time, they took the 200 microgrammes as if that was what the body required and doubled it to 400 microgrammes. The dose printed on every supplement bottle, every prenatal tablet, every box of fortified cereal and from December 2026, every sack of British white flour, descends from that 1998 number.

Worse, the 400 number has been translated into 400 microgrammes of folic acid which is all bioavailable. The consequence is that the daily dosing is four times higher than what the body requires and is on top of the 100 microgrammes which any diet already contains. Put plainly, the recommended dose is not topping up a small shortfall; it is the body’s entire daily requirement delivered four times over, on top of the folate already coming from ordinary food.

A 2006 study actually measured the folate absorbed from food. Their result put the figure for how much folate is absorbed from fruit and vegetables closer to 80 per cent. What we take from our food has been underestimated.

Industry had managed to hoodwink everyone into suggesting that we needed an amount four times higher than we need and, importantly, an amount that could never be achieved from any diet. The official recommended daily allowance made it look like we could not be healthy without eating industry’s supplements.

How Much Folate Is In Food

The simplest test of a recommendation is to hold it up against an ordinary plate of food. A serving of chicken liver carries 500 to 600 microgrammes of folate. A cup of cooked lentils, around 350. A cup of cooked spinach, more than 250. Asparagus, broccoli and beans all add their share. Even on the pessimistic absorption figures, a normal mixed diet routinely supplies far more folate than the body actually requires.

This is exactly why the 1981 Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy concluded that there was no public health problem of folate deficiency to solve. The panel argued correctly that food already supplies plenty of folate. Nobody needs a supplement.

About the Author

Dr. Clare Craig is a British Diagnostic Pathologist and medical researcher who worked in the NHS for 15 years before becoming a Consultant Pathologist in 2009.  She is best known for her covid-19 research.  She has worked pro bono since May 2020 to analyse covid pandemic data and distil evidence for lay audiences.

She is the author of two books: ‘Expired: Covid the untold story’ (2023) and ‘Spiked: A shot in the dark’ (2025).