Thank you for subscribing. If you would like to remain a free subscriber, please engage with my blog. Otherwise, I will remove you from the free subscriber list. Those are my terms.

Ways to engage:

1. Open blog posts and scroll through them—you don’t even have to read anything.

2. If you enjoy a post, like it, share it, or leave a comment.

3. Share posts on Facebook or Twitter, or send them to others via email.

I’m bringing this up because I recently noticed a new free subscriber who has not viewed or interacted with any of my posts. To me, that is suspicious. Someone in this position could report my emails as spam or simply not engage at all, which negatively affects my metrics and can contribute to reduced visibility (e.g., shadow banning). To prevent any of this from happening, I have already removed this subscriber.

Let’s work together to avoid this issue.

Sincerely,

Renee

To learn more read this post:

Leave a comment

It is difficult for me to gauge interest in this translation of the book Apandemia by Stefano Scoglio. How would I know if people like it or are interested? We all should know by now that the internet is not free. Since I cannot reasonably assume that people are interested in this book, I have made a separate section for the book, this way you can unsubscribe to future notifications, specific to this book. I have made a post that explains how you can subscribe only to the book or only to my other posts. Here is that post:

THE ROLE OF EARLIER FLU VACCINES IN THE “SECOND WAVE”

But there is another even more plausible explanation for the 2020 mortality increase. It is necessary to distinguish between the alleged first wave and second wave, terms we accept to discuss despite even “epidemiologists not being sure it is useful to conceptualize pandemics as structured in waves.”🦶1 32

In my first analysis of ISTAT’s COVID-19 statistics, I noted that even during the initial March–April phase, only a minority of reported cases could clearly be attributed to COVID-19 itself—and that many of those severe outcomes may have been linked more to aggressive intubation protocols than to contagion. I also cautioned against overlooking the possible impact of mass vaccination campaigns. The two areas most affected by the alleged pandemic, Bergamo and Brescia, had carried out extensive vaccination drives in the preceding months: around 185,000 flu shots and approximately 80,000 meningococcal vaccinations, often administered concurrently, creating potentially harmful interactions. I further referenced an article published in Avvenire, where local physicians reported several cases of fatal pneumonia occurring even before the COVID narrative emerged, remarking with surprise that “they were all vaccinated.”🦶2 33

An unusual and highly significant fact is connected to the sharp rise in deaths observed in October and especially November: the earlier start of the flu vaccination campaign. As the Ministry of Health reported, “Data on flu vaccination for the 2019/2020 season show, in the general population, an increase in coverage from 15.8% of the previous season to 16.8% of the last season. In the elderly especially, starting from the 2015/16 season, a constant increase in coverage is observed, settling at 54.6%.”

Since flu vaccinations are mainly administered to people over 65, a 1% increase in national vaccination coverage likely corresponds to at least a 5% rise among this age group—a group that, in 2019, already accounted for more than half of all vaccinated individuals, in a steadily growing trend. This year, coincidentally, the vaccination campaign—which usually starts gradually in mid-October, intensifies in November, and peaks in December—was moved up to begin on October 1 and began at full speed, justified by the stated need to better distinguish cases of flu from COVID.

Along with the earlier start of the vaccination season, flu shots were made free for the first time to those over 60, instead of only those over 65. The move was accompanied by an intensive media campaign urging people to get vaccinated, supposedly to help doctors and hospitals better distinguish true COVID cases. The logic behind this argument was that if someone vaccinated against influenza later developed flu-like symptoms, it could only be COVID.

Coincidentally or not, the sharp rise in deaths during October and November paralleled the progressive rollout of mass flu vaccination among the elderly. I recently published an article discussing the potential cardiovascular risks of flu vaccines, which contain unspecified amounts of potassium chloride and phosphate—substances that may pose added risks to frail or elderly individuals. This topic will be explored in more depth in the chapter devoted to vaccines. There, we will also examine how COVID vaccines appear to be even less effective and more harmful than flu vaccines, potentially contributing to a further rise in mortality in the coming months—figures that may, once again, be attributed to the so-called “pseudo-pandemic.”

The Impact of 5G

As we will see, although overall mortality rates remained well within the normal range—indicating that no true pandemic occurred—the pattern of pneumonias observed this year shows certain peculiarities that may be linked to the introduction of 5G networks. Indeed, 2020 marked the year of large-scale 5G deployment:

“We are almost there: after so many announcements and long waiting, 2020 is the year when 5G networks will become available to everyone, or almost... Almost all Italian mobile operators activated the first 5G repeaters last summer (Summer 2019 - NdR) and plan to greatly expand coverage throughout 2020. TIM, for example, started with Rome, Turin, and Naples (university citadel), then moving to Milan, Verona, Florence, Matera, and Bari...”🦶34 3

It is not yet possible to make comparative evaluations between 5G rollout and increases in pathologies, especially because there are no transparent data on 5G presence in the territory. But it is a line of research to keep in mind, because as we saw, there is no doubt that the areas most hit by the pseudo-pandemic, Wuhan as well as Bergamo, besides being spearheads of mass vaccinations, were also avant-gardes for the installation of 5G antennas.

Before evaluating in more detail the aforementioned toxemic factors, we conclude this chapter with the analysis of the latest ISTAT reports on the increase in deaths throughout 2020.

ISTAT TALKS OF 100,000 MORE DEATHS IN 2020. BUT WHAT DID THEY DIE OF?
Il Miglioverde, March 11, 2021

ISTAT has just released its latest—fifth—report on 2020 mortality,🦶354, stating that there were 746,146 deaths last year, an increase of 100,526 compared to the 2015–2019 average, or +15.6%. The media and pandemic enthusiasts greeted the news with almost celebratory enthusiasm, as if it finally provided proof—against all “deniers”—that yes, there was indeed something resembling a pandemic. Not much of one, perhaps, but, as they would say, details…

I will not dwell on the details of this latest Report, which largely reiterates the themes and data already presented in earlier editions and that I have discussed extensively in previous writings. Instead, I will focus on a few key points. First: why do all media outlets insist on speaking of 100,000 COVID deaths, when the report itself explicitly states that there were 100,500 more deaths than the previous five-year average, and, at the same time, attributes 75,000 of these to COVID? Even in the most favorable interpretation (for them), the pandemic could have accounted for at most 75,000 excess deaths. But where is the proof that these 75,000 COVID deaths are actually included within the 100,000 total excess deaths? As in previous reports, this one too is clearly constructed with a propagandistic intent—to assert that the mortality increase is both unprecedented and directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. All accompanying graphs, including the one below, are designed to emphasize how the rise in deaths neatly overlaps with the so-called “pandemic waves.”

This graph refers to Central Italy, and it is unclear why ISTAT chose not to present a single graph for the entire country, opting instead for three separate ones corresponding to the North, Center, and South. Perhaps the reason is that including the South would have lowered the overall average, making the visual impact less dramatic. As is well known, statistics can be shaped to support particular narratives, and in this case, it seems evident that the intention is to suggest a correlation between mortality surges and the rise in deaths attributed to COVID.

Even at this stage, the first inconsistencies become apparent: the peaks in mortality align not only with increases in deaths involving COVID but also with the periods of lockdown. Notably, the red dots representing excess mortality rise sharply around March 10—the start of the first lockdown—and remain elevated until the end of April, precisely matching the duration of that confinement. Similarly, the so‑called second wave, which began in mid to late October and lasted through December, coincides with the second lockdown introduced by the Conte government beginning on November 4.

Admittedly, data can be interpreted in many ways. Supporters of the dominant pandemic narrative may argue that lockdowns helped prevent the further spread of the virus. However, one might also consider that the rise in mortality could stem from the lockdowns themselves or from other contributing factors—such as the widespread iatrogenic errors (mistaken treatments) during the first wave, and the mass influenza vaccinations preceding the so‑called second wave. To privilege one interpretation over another, solid evidence is required—particularly detailed data on causes of death, which ISTAT has conspicuously avoided producing.

But can lockdowns actually cause deaths? If you search “morti per lockdown” in Italian, you’ll find only articles insisting that lockdowns serve exclusively to save lives. Yet, if you search “death by lockdown” in English, you can access—at least for now—studies and discussions that are completely silenced in what has become the Italian information lockdown. For instance, the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) cites an important study by economists Audrey and Thomas Duncan, who predicted an excess mortality of no fewer than 100,000 deaths attributable to lockdown measures. As AIER points out, despite its sound scientific basis, this research was entirely ignored by mainstream media. The article also draws on official CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) data, revealing a dramatic increase in deaths unrelated to COVID.🦶365:

These figures align with the data I first highlighted in my initial analysis of ISTAT records. In Bergamo, for instance, between February 20 and March 31, 2020, there were 6,238 total deaths—compared with an average of 1,180 deaths during the same period over the previous five years. Of these, only 2,346 were classified as deaths with COVID, leaving 3,892 deaths from other causes. In other words, while deaths involving COVID (setting aside the official report that 95% of these cases involved individuals over 80 with multiple serious preexisting conditions) represented a 100% increase over the historical average, deaths from other causes soared by an astonishing 333%.

The same pattern was seen in other cities with high excess mortality. In Pesaro, for instance, there were 912 total deaths between February and March, compared with an average of 454 during the same period over the previous five years. Of these, only 157 were attributed to COVID, leaving 755 deaths from other causes. 🦶376 In other words, deaths with COVID accounted for just 34% of the five‑year average, while deaths from other causes amounted to 166% of that average. Isn’t it time we tried to understand what the vast majority of these excess deaths were actually due to?

As I suggested in a previous paper, this large excess of “non‑COVID” deaths may be explained by a combination of factors: the effects of lockdowns (including depression, substance abuse, and isolation of untreated patients), inappropriate medical interventions (which persisted even after widespread acknowledgment of the harmful consequences of intubation), and vaccines — a taboo topic that nevertheless accounts for numerous casualties every year. This year, the toll may have been even higher due to aggressive campaigns urging flu vaccination to “avoid confusion” with COVID, only for the narrative to shift later, claiming that COVID had conveniently made the flu disappear. In pandemic journalism, it seems the principle of wanting both a full barrel and a drunk wife reigns supreme.

If ISTAT truly wished to fulfill its institutional role, rather than acting as a propaganda vehicle, it would have done the one thing capable of demonstrating COVID’s real contribution to excess mortality: analyzing and publishing data on the incidence of different causes of death — something it has carefully avoided. The institute also neglects another striking aspect: the anomalies in mortality by age group. Here is how ISTAT itself reports the situation of excess mortality across age brackets:

The first striking fact is that in 2020, mortality among those aged 0–50 actually decreased by 8.5% compared with the average of the previous five years. This figure alone should be enough to cast serious doubt on the very notion of a pandemic: how can a pandemic lead to a notable reduction in mortality for half of the population?🦶387 It would have to be a strangely benevolent pandemic — one that, for the most active and working segment of society, turned out to be a gift of longevity

But it is interesting to compare the above datum with COVID’s contribution to general mortality for each age class:

The comparison is significant because, if COVID deaths fully accounted for the rise in overall mortality, the increase in total deaths should correspond exactly to the number of COVID deaths. The age group most affected by the overall increase is, unsurprisingly, those over 80. According to ISTAT, this group accounts for 76.3% of total excess mortality — an increase of 76,708 deaths compared to the 2015–2019 average — which means the surge in deaths occurred primarily within this age bracket. ISTAT also reports that deaths among the over‑80s rose by 18.7%, bringing the total to 486,255 deaths. Since COVID deaths represent 9.6% of this total, that corresponds to approximately 46,680 deaths with COVID. This tells us something crucial: among the over‑80s, there are 30,028 excess deaths (76,708 − 46,680) not attributed to COVID. Subtracting these from COVID’s contribution to excess mortality reduces the total from 100,526 to 70,498.

This clearly shows that even the figure of 75,000 deaths “with COVID” does not fully account for the 100,000 excess deaths. Therefore, the claim that all 100,000 additional deaths were caused by COVID does not hold up. As noted, the only way to determine with certainty how many of these excess deaths were truly due to COVID — and how many to other causes — would be to assess the contribution of each cause of death to overall mortality. Without such an analysis, any assertion about COVID’s share in excess mortality remains pure propaganda.

COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, and its symptoms largely overlap with those of common flu and pneumonia. If the 75,000 recorded deaths “with COVID” coincided with a decrease in flu and pneumonia mortality, that reduction should logically be subtracted from COVID’s contribution to excess deaths. According to the most reliable estimates, roughly 30,000 people die each year from influenza, mostly among those over 80. If flu mortality dropped by, say, 25,000 cases during the COVID period, then those 25,000 deaths were not additional but effectively replaced what would have been flu-related deaths. Since we have already discounted about 5,000 cases from the initial 75,000 COVID-related deaths when estimating the 100,000 total excess deaths, deducting an additional 25,000 would reduce COVID’s net contribution to about 45,000 deaths. This means that over half of the excess mortality would need to be attributed to causes other than COVID.

That this hypothesis may not be numerically exact yet still reflects reality is effectively acknowledged by ISTAT itself—albeit through a widely circulated and unconvincing justification:

“In January 2021, the absolute number of COVID-19 deaths reported by Surveillance exceeds the calculated excess mortality compared to the average of previous years. This phenomenon is likely attributable to a reduction in deaths from causes other than COVID-19, such as influenza, which—thanks to distancing measures—had a much lower incidence compared to 2015–2019.”

This explanation for the disappearance of influenza is difficult to reconcile with the assumption—central to virological theory—that influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 share similar modes of transmission. It remains unclear why masks and distancing would suppress the former while coinciding with a surge in the latter.

A more straightforward interpretation is that many deaths previously attributed to influenza or pneumonia were reclassified as COVID-19. ISTAT’s own data for January 2021 appear consistent with this view.

In that month, ISTAT reports approximately 70,583 deaths—about 2,000 above the five-year average, yet more than 5,000 fewer than the 75,623 recorded in January 2017. Of these, 12,527 were attributed to COVID-19. In the absence of a substantial increase in overall mortality, these COVID-19 deaths correspond to a comparable reduction in deaths from other causes, most likely influenza and pneumonia, the former having reportedly undergone a “sharp decrease.”

Therefore, by ISTAT’s own admission, deaths “with COVID” in 2020 did not necessarily add to overall excess mortality but largely replaced deaths from other causes, as observed in January 2021. This implies that the roughly 100,000 excess deaths—absent evidence to the contrary—must be attributed, at least in substantial part, to factors other than COVID-19.

We have already noted how a significant share of the approximately 30,000 annual influenza deaths appears to have been reclassified as COVID-19, reducing the number of cases plausibly contributing to excess mortality to around 45,000. Applying the same reasoning to pneumonia—which accounts for roughly 70,000 deaths each year—suggests that the January 2021 pattern may extend to 2020 as a whole.

Cause-specific mortality data are not yet available, so this conclusion cannot be stated with certainty. However, the available indicators point in this direction, and even ISTAT has not definitively quantified COVID-19’s contribution to excess mortality. What remains clear is the January 2021 figure: COVID-19 accounted for about 17% of total deaths without producing a corresponding increase in overall mortality.

Since the only major novelties in 2020 were COVID-19 and the lockdown measures, if the increase in deaths cannot be attributed to COVID-19, it must be sought elsewhere—namely in the effects of the lockdowns themselves. These include delayed, inadequate, or foregone medical care, increased vaccination campaigns, and a range of well-documented social and health consequences such as depression, suicide, substance abuse, and poverty-related malnutrition.

FOOTNOTES 🦶

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

This is a short guide for anyone who wants to better manage their subscriptions on Substack.

I’ve started a new section specifically for the book Apandemia by Stefano Scoglio, translated from Italian into English. Whether you want to receive notifications only for the book, or avoid them entirely, this guide should help you figure out how.

Go to farsideoffringe.ca. If you are signed into Substack, you will see three lines in the upper right corner—click on “Manage Subscription.”

Now you will be able to toggle on and off your selection. See image below:

If you have any questions leave your comment here.

Leave a comment

What if this was the plan all along—to keep you focused on an impossible task? And why is it impossible in the first place? There are several reasons. Maybe I’ll post about this subject today, tomorrow, and the next day, because I’m not sure I can cover everything here.

Summing it up:

• Health authorities assign causes of death based on the directives they receive about how those determinations should be made.

• It’s possible for injuries or deaths occurring after vaccination to be assigned alternative causes, depending on reporting standards and interpretation.

• Many people who were injured did not die from the vaccine; they were “assisted suicides,” especially in Canada, where I live. And in Canada, it won’t be recorded as “assisted suicide”—it’ll be labeled something else. So if they can change the cause at will, do you really think they’d ever call it a vaccine injury?

Pro-Vaccine Narratives Need the Anti-Vax “Other” More Than Most People Realize

I don’t spend much energy talking about vaccines — and here’s why. First, I suspect that a lot of what’s being injected isn’t actually what people think. There’s probably a significant amount of saline in circulation. This helps the pro-vaccine side label people who won’t stop questioning the vaccines as “crazy.” I’m not saying it’s all saline — just that there’s a lot of saline, okay?

For me, it’s more effective to point out that we never needed a vaccine in the first place. That logic applies to far more than just COVID.

Here are a couple of COVID-specific examples showing that we never needed a vaccine. Each image includes testimony provided by BiologyPhenom’s blog.

Spending more time being explicitly “anti-vax” might make my blog more popular, but I don’t believe it would stop vaccines or change the underlying dynamics. That’s why I don’t invest much energy there.

Spring Cleaning Update

In a previous post1, I explained how bot farms often rely on cell phones, since mobile devices effectively disguise bot activity. Bots can like posts, share them, or leave comments — but that’s not all. They can also sabotage accounts and enforce shadow bans.

On platforms like X and Facebook, bot farms are routinely deployed to mass-report accounts for “misinformation,” spam, or harassment.

On Substack, the tactics are subtler but just as effective. Bots can subscribe to a blog but then never open emails, read posts, or engage with Notes. These bot-like subscriptions create the illusion of growth while polluting analytics.

Third parties can even buy fake subscribers for a rival (occasionally for me — aw shucks) to inflate numbers artificially, distort metrics, or test abuse mechanisms.

I’ve also noticed something strange about Substack Notes: the platform seems to punish creators for posting internally. With other platforms like X or Facebook, the punishment would be for sending traffic off-platform— like if I try to share a Youtube link on Facebook or X. I can share endless links to my blog; followers might like those Notes, but they rarely click through to read the full post. That’s understandable, because people are hooked on scrolling — but still odd.

This dynamic reinforces how accounts can be quietly shadow-banned on Substack. It’s one reason I’ve begun removing low-engagement subscribers. I can’t afford to keep inactive accounts that dilute reach and engagement. I’m here for readers who truly want to be here. If you appreciate my work, I appreciate you just as deeply — but the current environment demands pruning to keep the signal clear.

If you’re trying to understand what engagement means, it can be as simple as opening an email. But if you prefer not to open the emails I send, you can turn off email notifications and instead set a reminder to check my blog at farsideoffringe.ca regularly for new posts. Even just opening and viewing a post helps support me.

Leave a comment

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

The biggest example, of course, is the fake pandemic of 2020.

There is currently no broad legal requirement forcing pharmaceutical companies (or others who benefit from pharma agendas) to disclose that an account is funded, sponsored, or covertly managed by a drug company. This makes it very difficult to distinguish between independent voices and those that are paid.

If you read a previous post of mine, you’ll also know how social media operates in ways that slide or hide important conversations.

Technique #1 – Forum Sliding

If a very sensitive, critical post is published on a forum, it can be quickly removed from public view through forum sliding.

In this technique:

• A number of unrelated posts are quietly pre-positioned on the forum and allowed to “age.”

• Each of these misdirectional posts can then be called upon at will to trigger a forum slide.

A second requirement is the existence of several fake accounts, which ensure this technique isn’t exposed to the public.

To trigger a forum slide and flush the critical post out of view:

1. Log into each account (both real and fake).

2. Reply to the pre-positioned posts with a brief one- or two-line comment.

This pushes unrelated posts to the top of the forum list, causing the critical post to slide down the front page and quickly out of sight. Although outright censorship may be difficult, the post becomes buried in a sea of unrelated, useless content.

This method effectively keeps readers focused on non-issues rather than real discussions.1

Controlled Opposition

Question: Why do some social media accounts get more visibility than others, even when they are contrarian—that is, they oppose the pharma model?

Answer: Controlled opposition.

Not only are there fake accounts used to control online discussions, but there are also bot farms. (Watch this short video)

These bot farms use cell phones because mobile devices effectively disguise bot activity.

What can bots do?

• Like posts

• Share content

• Comment on posts

A study released in March 2025 found that:

“both datasets were dominated by pro-vaccine accounts; most highly active (59%) and highly visible (50%) accounts classified as probable bots were pro-vaccine.”2

While some “anti-vax” bots may appear genuine, they may actually be funded by pharma to divert audiences from valid criticism—another form of forum sliding.

Watch the short video below for another example of how we were misled about our perceptions of social media.3

Example: The Measles Post That Got Ignored

For instance, this recent X post by Sanjeev Sabhlok (@sabhlok) got very little attention, despite alleged anti-vax bots. Only 2 likes and 578 views. Where’s the love? Isn’t this a strong argument against the current measles scam?

“This is a fantastic chart:
—the book contains other useful information, too.
A GOOD CHUNK OF THE UK POPULATION REMAINED UNDERNOURISHED EVEN IN 1940.
E.g. milk. With poorer sections of the UK unable to afford sufficient milk, the only way measles mortality could have been eradicated is with higher incomes AND lower prices of milk. Both of these happened by 1960, as a result of which measles mortality almost entirely disappeared—MANY YEARS BEFORE THE MEASLES VACCINE.
DESPITE THIS, idiot ‘doctors’ keep claiming that the measles vaccine is crucial to the control of measles mortality.
No! The data are 100% clear. If you (hypothetically) stop the measles vaccine today among rich parents who can afford sufficient Vitamin A (milk, butter, cod liver oil, carrots, etc.), there will be close to zero deaths from measles. THIS IS CONCLUSIVE. NOT SPECULATION.”4

It isn’t easy to determine the best way to resist this coordinated group effort. Is it?

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

During COVID, my political views changed dramatically. I concluded that the only party I could support long-term is the Conservative Party. Ideally, though, I’d prefer a system without any political parties at all. That’s why I was excited to discover IndependentNS1 — a grassroots movement in Nova Scotia that argues political parties themselves are the core problem in our democracy. As I explained in a recent post, IndependentNS believes parties act as “guardrails” that force elected representatives to follow the party line instead of their conscience or constituents’ wishes. Their motto — “The party is over” — captures that spirit perfectly. The group encourages citizens in every riding to recruit trusted local independents who would have a free vote on every issue, be accountable to their community, and even face recall or loss of pension if they lie to voters. Unfortunately, recent changes to Nova Scotia election law have made it much harder for independents to even appear on the ballot.

But this post isn’t really about party preferences or IndependentNS. It’s about the misconception that refusing to vote somehow removes your consent. I don’t believe that’s true. The more impactful approach is to vote — and then, regardless of who wins, to stay active and hold those in office accountable. Participation doesn’t end at the ballot box.

One recent example shows why voting still matters in Canada. During the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa — a movement that I believe had global resonance, even inspiring movements like China’s “blank paper” protests — Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act. Courts have since ruled that decision unconstitutional, twice. Yet the Liberals, now under Prime Minister Mark Carney, continue to fight the ruling in court, spending taxpayer dollars on repeated appeals.

During the Convoy, it became clear that heavy-handed pandemic policies may never have had real public support — only the illusion of it. Social media, manipulated by algorithms and elite interests, created a distorted sense of consensus. The Conservatives seemed to recognize this reality and adjusted their stance accordingly. That’s why it would have been far better if Conservatives had won enough votes to form government. Because they didn’t, Canadians are still dealing with lingering pandemic-era policies and remain exposed to the more radical agendas of the hard left. Social media creates the illusion of popularity, but it’s largely engineered by technocratic billionaires. Actual public sentiment is often very different.

Compliant people vote — which is why abstaining only gives them more influence. Refusing to vote doesn’t starve the system of legitimacy; it starves you of impact. The more powerful and principled response is to show up, cast your ballot, and then stay engaged: demand accountability, challenge bad policy, and push for change no matter who holds office. Voting alone isn’t enough, but refusing to vote is worse. It doesn’t reject the system — it quietly empowers whoever shows up on the other side.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

I agree with terrain theory, though not in the way some “no-virus” advocates present it. I also accept that bacteria exist but are not the direct cause of disease. However, neither position on its own has proven effective in stopping fake pandemics.

For those unfamiliar, terrain theory holds that illness arises from a compromised internal environment—shaped by poor sunlight exposure, lack of exercise, insufficient rest, and inadequate nutrition. In short, good self-care should prevent sickness.

Some argue there are no pathogenic bacteria because the same microbes are often found in healthy people. But that misses a key point: today, most people have a very poor terrain. True health is rare.

Moreover, judging someone’s health—especially online—is both unreliable and inappropriate. You can’t assess another person’s physical condition through conversation, just as no one has a right to demand personal medical disclosure.

Claiming that terrain theory alone will prevent future fake pandemics is unrealistic. During COVID, people with weak terrain were the most vulnerable. Many were targeted through neglectful or harmful medical protocols. Their fragility was exploited—and the same tactic can easily be used again.

Restoring terrain also takes time. Elaine Gottschall’s Breaking the Vicious Cycle illustrates this clearly: even for children, meaningful recovery through the Specific Carbohydrate Diet often required years—not a quick “get outside and exercise” fix. During a declared pandemic, when food costs rise (as they did during COVID), restoring health becomes even more challenging.

Consider what happened in Scotland. Thanks to for documenting this. Below are excerpts from testimony in the Scottish COVID inquiry:

Daniel Stephen Scott1 (Speech and Language Therapist, 25 years at Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS, Trades Union representative):

“A significant issue was the placing of DNRs in patients’ notes… Some medics coerced families into agreeing… The decisions were not medical but came from pressure from above. It created a ‘lower value’ person.” (paras. 38–40)

Andrew Smart 2(Family Support Director, PAMIS):

“Covid was not the worst thing… The consequences of lockdown were far greater. Families neglected their own health out of fear… Children’s posture deteriorated from inactivity and shielding. There was no mental health support. No one can live a full life confined to a room.” (paras. 35, 37, 40–42)

Heather Scanlan 3(Senior Care Assistant, 35 years at Erskine Care Home):

“Residents needed two negative PCR tests and faced two weeks of isolation upon arrival… Isolation extended with any new symptom. This was the biggest change.” (paras. 10, 13)

There’s much more within the inquiry, but this captures the essence: most people are not well. Terrain theory alone cannot protect society from future fake pandemics when poor terrain is so widespread—and so easily manipulated.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

1

Biologyphenom

Scottish COVID-19 inquiry|New witness statement evidence

Introduction…

Read more

a month ago · 16 likes · 7 comments · biologyphenom

2

Biologyphenom

Scottish COVID-19 inquiry|New witness statement evidence

Introduction…

Read more

a month ago · 10 likes · 3 comments · biologyphenom

3

Biologyphenom

Scottish COVID-19 inquiry|New witness statement evidence

Introduction…

Read more

a month ago · 10 likes · 2 comments · biologyphenom

This post is about what happened when I started asking them anyway.

I’ve been spending a little more time on X lately. I used to think it was a complete waste of time—and it still mostly is. There are far better ways to spend my hours: playing the piano, being with family, cooking delicious food, exercising, meditating, reading fiction, or drawing. So many more worthwhile pursuits exist.

Previously, I didn’t follow X’s unwritten rules, so I’ve adjusted my approach. Now I stick to this simple protocol.

My X Protocol

1. Nobody will see what you post—not even your followers. Maybe six to eleven bots will notice, but if you’re not serving political goals (and might even impede them), your content stays invisible.

2. Focus your energy on the “For You” feed. Mine is full of “trust the science” types. Read their posts carefully. Reply when you have something thoughtful to add. Like strong replies in the comments and share the best ones.

Following this protocol hasn’t dramatically improved my account’s reach. But I lack the deep commitment needed for that. I don’t spend much time there—it doesn’t make me feel good—and I stick to a strict timetable. More dedication might yield results, but I’m not willing to go that far.

What Stands Out About the “Trust the Science” Crowd

Here’s what strikes me about them on X: they aren’t curious. “Following the science” has little to do with actual science. Real science thrives on questions, doubts, and skepticism. It’s not something you blindly follow. Studies emerge, people scrutinize them, poke holes, and build new theories. That’s science.

My interactions while following the protocol illustrate this lack of curiosity. Dr. Terry Simpson frequently shows up in my feed, so I engaged with his posts.

The First Carnivore Fight

Dr. Terry reposted this from The Carnivore RN (@wilsonhlthcoach):

“Vegans: ‘You can get plenty of fat and nutrients from plants, and you’ll lower your cardiovascular risk.’
My cardiovascular risk was actually 3x higher when I ate a heavy plant-based diet compared to carnivore.
Vegans can’t explain that one—or they just say I’m lying.”

Dr. Terry added:

“Nothing like making things up—do tell what ‘heavy plant-based diet’ made one 3x more at risk of heart disease than a carnivore diet. To do such would be amazing—but it didn’t happen.”

My reply:

“If the gut microbiome is dysbiotic (e.g., low diversity, overgrowth of opportunistic bacteria, or reduced beneficial SCFA producers), adopting a strict or high-fiber plant-based diet can sometimes worsen cardiovascular risk factors rather than improve them.”

This wasn’t outrageous. I didn’t claim everyone fares worse on a high-fiber diet. Yet Dr. Terry reposted my reply in a derogatory tone:

“The modern internet diet debate increasingly resembles theology. When the data disagree with the doctrine, the doctrine is preserved and the microbiome is blamed... A dysbiotic microbiome somehow making vegetables cause heart disease is an interesting story—but it’s not evidence.”

In other words: He dismissed microbiome mechanisms out of hand.
Have you ever had a doctor brush off your “what if” questions like this?

I didn’t back down and kept engaging, but Dr. Terry quickly lost interest. When I replied directly, I found something useful by consulting Grok (I’m on X Premium for a couple of discounted months, so why not use it?).

Bringing in Grok

Here’s part of what emerged (Dr. Terry showed no interest):

Me to Grok:

People who feel much better switching to carnivore may experience relief from gut issues, which could lower their cardiovascular risk markers. Theoretically.

Grok:

Theoretically, yes—if gut issues stem from fiber or plant sensitivities (e.g., excessive fermentation in dysbiosis or IBS-like conditions), carnivore eliminates those triggers... Long-term, zero fiber typically reduces microbiome diversity... Individual response varies; n-of-1 tracking helps test it.

I asked Grok to cite the studies. They weren’t on strict carnivores—they involved meat-heavy diets with processed carbs. Later, I pointed this out to Grok:

Grok’s reply:

Fair point—large long-term RCTs on strict carnivore are absent... Data gaps remain on both sides.

My takeaway: The “science” being quoted often doesn’t match the specific diet in question.

Round Two: Fats, Carbs, and Fiber

Dr. Terry later reposted another Carnivore RN post:

Carnivore RN:

“Will I die if I don’t eat fats and proteins? Yes... I would die if I ate only carbs... She’s so malnourished she almost died.”

Dr. Terry:

“Who is going to tell this person that saturated fats are not essential?... What you can get by with for a while is not the same as what is healthy for the vast majority in the long run.”

My reply (pushing the “theoretically” button):

“If your microbiome is overgrown with pathogenic bacteria and fungi, fiber will not help—it may harm. Theoretically... Right, @grok?”

Grok:

Theoretically yes—in dysbiosis with small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), fermentable fibers can feed excess microbes... The standard fix is to clear the overgrowth first, then gradually re-introduce fiber diversity.

The Big Picture

These exchanges show that many “trust the science” accounts on X aren’t truly interested in how the body works or the mechanisms of disease. They seem more doctrinal than scientific. Some may even have financial ties to pharma or aligned interests—there’s probably a back door for that.

You’re reading my newsletter about microbiome, nutrition, and how public health narratives shape our lives. If you’re new here, you might also like

So—what’s your take?
If you’ve read this far, I’d love to hear from you:

• Have you ever changed your diet and watched your labs or symptoms move in the “wrong” direction compared to what “the science” promised?

• Do you still use X, or have you left it behind?

Hit reply or leave a comment with your experience. If you know someone stuck in “trust the science” debates, consider sharing this post with them.

P.S. If you’d like more posts like this—mixing real-world stories with microbiome and nutrition—make sure you’re subscribed.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

Microbiome attacks are layered and incredibly hard to defeat—not just because pathogens are sneaky, but because we often don’t want to admit how deeply our internal terrain has become compromised. This dung didn’t pile up overnight. A healthy microbiome isn’t about endlessly hunting “bad bugs”; it’s about cultivating a strong internal environment where imbalance can’t take root in the first place.​

There’s a raging online battle: terrain theory vs. germ theory. Germ theory claims germs invade and cause disease, so we must kill them. Terrain theory—rooted in Antoine Béchamp’s work and echoed in modern microbiome science—says the opposite: the terrain (your body’s internal environment, pH balance, nutrient status, detoxification pathways, stress levels, and microbiome ecosystem) determines whether microbes become pathogenic at all. In a strong, balanced terrain, even “bad” bacteria or fungi remain commensal or beneficial. In a weakened, acidic, inflamed, or dysbiotic terrain, those same organisms turn opportunistic, form protective structures like spores and biofilms, and drive recurring symptoms.

I find the debate confusing because people get lost in vague details or fixate on killing germs while ignoring the host. What really matters is the terrain. Fix the terrain, and the body often does the heavy lifting from there.

You can run endless tests and uncover “problems” (pathogenic bacteria, fungal overgrowth, etc.), but symptoms are often a more useful metric for tracking progress over time. The system, however, pushes more testing and less conversation—because symptoms force us to talk about lifestyle, diet, stress, and the bigger picture of terrain health. The system also prefers testing because it benefits investors and “cures.”​

We all harbor potentially pathogenic bacteria and fungi, healthy or not. Finding them isn’t the same as finding “the problem.” You can carry “bad” bacteria and remain perfectly healthy if your terrain supports balance. Theoretically, those same “bad” organisms might even be protective or symbiotic under the right conditions.

But when the terrain deteriorates—through poor diet, chronic stress, antibiotics, toxins, inflammation, or dysbiosis—opportunists thrive. That’s where sporulation and biofilms become major issues. They aren’t random attacks; they’re survival strategies microbes use when the host environment turns hostile.

Sporulation: Dormancy as a Weapon

Sporulation is the process by which certain bacteria form highly resistant spores, allowing pathogens to hide and persist within a compromised host. In a healthy terrain, the immune system and balanced microbiome keep these in check. In a weakened terrain, spores resist detection and treatment far better.​

Spore-forming bacteria such as Clostridioides difficile, Bacillus anthracis, and Clostridium perfringens can enter a dormant state that resists heat, desiccation, UV, and many antibiotics.​

• Antibiotics target active vegetative cells, not dormant spores.

• Spores survive extreme conditions on surfaces and inside the body.

• After antibiotics wipe out vegetative cells, surviving spores germinate back into active pathogens—💣boom, recurring infection.​

This isn’t germ theory’s “invader wins”; it’s terrain theory in action: a damaged terrain allows dormancy and resurgence.

“Sporulation” in Fungi: Candida’s Survival Tricks

Candida species (especially C. albicans and C. dubliniensis) form spore‑like chlamydospores under stress (nutrient deprivation, low oxygen, etc.). These thick-walled dormant structures lower metabolism for survival in harsh microenvironments. While not true bacterial spores, they serve a similar persistence function.​

Candida’s adaptive strategies include:

• Morphological switching: the yeast–pseudohyphae transition enables tissue penetration, immune evasion, and adaptation to terrain changes. When a macrophage engulfs a chlamydospore, the spore can germinate a tube that pierces and kills the immune cell from within.​

• Immune masking: Candida can hide cell-wall markers such as beta‑glucans from immune detection.​

From a terrain theory standpoint, Candida overgrowth isn’t primarily an “infection” to eradicate—it’s a symptom of dysbiotic terrain (for example, after antibiotics, high sugar intake, or chronic inflammation). A healthy terrain keeps Candida in a commensal role.

“Trojan Horse” Partnerships: Why Testing Often Misses It

This connects to endosymbiosis—one organism living inside another. Research shows Candida can act as a “Trojan horse” for bacteria such as Helicobacter pylori.

In this model, Candida cells (particularly chlamydospores and yeast forms) can harbor bacteria inside internal vacuoles:

• Physical shielding: the chitin‑rich fungal wall protects internalized bacteria from stomach acid and immune attack.

• Antibiotic protection: many antibiotics cannot effectively penetrate the fungal wall, allowing bacteria to survive treatment.​

H. pylori benefits from this partnership by using the fungal interior for:

• pH buffering: the environment inside Candida is more stable amid stomach acidity.

• Transmission and adhesion: Candida’s ability to stick to mucous membranes helps H. pylori anchor and spread person‑to‑person.

This kind of microbial partnership helps explain why standard H. pylori testing (breath or stool) may miss sequestered bacteria and why infections can reappear after “successful” treatment.

Co‑Infection, Persistence, and the Terrain

This dual survival system makes eradication difficult:

• Standard H. pylori tests may miss hidden bacteria.

• Antibiotics clear free‑floating pathogens, but Candida can release its bacterial cargo after treatment—💣boom💣, reinfection.​

Again, terrain theory shines here: killing germs repeatedly fails if the underlying dysbiosis and poor terrain persist. Restore the terrain—rebalance the gut, reduce inflammation, support detoxification, and optimize pH and nutrition—and these hiding strategies lose their advantage.

Bottom Line: Empower the Host

Sporulation, biofilms, and hidden pathogens aren’t proof that germs are invincible invaders. They’re evidence that we’ve allowed the terrain to degrade so badly that microbes must adapt to survive in it.

The focus should shift from endless germ‑hunting to rebuilding a resilient, balanced internal environment through nutrition, stress management, detoxification, sleep, movement, and microbiome support.

The reaction to COVID was medical fascism. While public health authorities would never admit to being fascistic, when we examine the evidence—which could fill libraries—it cannot be doubted that the COVID response consisted entirely of fascist examples.

This is mainly evident in the pseudoscientific responses.

It was claimed that everyone needed to stay home until a vaccine was developed. And no matter what you said to try to correct that assumption, you would be called racist and even fascist. The irony.

These were not vaccines in the traditional sense. They were what Robert Malone previously referred to as transfections in his early papers on this technology. Why did they stop calling them transfections? Because it would reveal that there was nothing particularly new about the technology. mRNA (as it was renamed), or gene technology, had been around for a long time and was considered a failure in many contexts. But in order to convince everyone that they needed to take one of these shots, proper terminology was ignored, as this would provide too much information—the opposite of informed consent.

With the arrival of these transfections came the claim that people who did not allow themselves to be injected with this experimental, previously failed technology should be kept away from those who did participate in the experiment. This was purportedly to reduce spread and save lives. Somehow it was claimed that everyone who could take one needed to do so in order to protect those who could not, yet anyone who could not take one could rarely find a way to get an exemption. So it had nothing to do with protecting vulnerable people who could not take the shot.

Later, many public health figures admitted that this was not the actual purpose. It was more of a carrot-and-stick situation: you would be rewarded for complying and taking the vaccine by being allowed into restaurants or grocery stores.

However, let us examine how most people saw it—they truly believed it was to protect people and stop spread. If this was genuinely the case, then why did we stop at transfections? There are other factors involved in preventing spread. In particular, one important factor is body mass index (BMI).

A 2022 hospital study of healthcare workers (218 cases) showed that obese workers (BMI > 30) were 9 times more likely to infect coworkers (OR 9.29, p=0.001; adjusted OR 10.89). Only 3% of lean staff spread the infection to 2 or more people, vs. 25% of obese staff.1

And lockdowns fattened everyone even more: during the first wave of 2020, 11–72% of people gained weight (average +1.57 kg in many reviews); in Massachusetts, 46% of women and 41% of men piled on pounds quickly. 2Yet this wasn’t the full picture—while the majority packed on pounds from sedentary isolation, stress eating, and easy access to processed foods, a significant minority (often 18–35% in U.S. surveys, and up to 36% in some datasets) lost weight, sometimes drastically and unintentionally. This stemmed from heightened food insecurity—job losses, supply disruptions, and economic strain forcing skipped meals or reduced intake—which carried its own dangers: malnutrition, weakened immunity, muscle loss, and long-term metabolic harm (as seen in studies linking severe calorie restriction during the period to potential cardiovascular risks even after recovery).3 Losing weight due to food instability was hardly a health benefit; it was another form of collateral damage from policies that disrupted access to basics while claiming to safeguard public health.

So if everything that happened during the period of severe restrictions was truly scientific, we would have seen a very different reaction. We would have seen people encouraged to maintain healthy nutrition and activity levels in a balanced way, with targeted support for vulnerable groups to prevent both obesity spikes and insecurity-driven malnutrition or harmful weight loss. The food-insecure and those facing shortages should have been prioritized for access to restaurants, grocery stores, and good, delicious, nutritious food—not punished by the very disruptions that caused their plight. Instead, the exclusionary logic applied elsewhere (stay home, comply, or be shut out) ignored these realities, allowing processed junk to flow freely while real nourishment became harder for many to obtain.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

Since lockdowns made people more obese on net (while harming others through unintended thinness and malnutrition), clearly this had nothing to do with science. Authorities did not restrict processed foods or convenience takeout. Ice cream remained available in stores the whole time. And people who wanted to go outside to exercise were harassed by authorities.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING:
THE NEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF COVID-19 DEATHS

The media hammering on the alleged COVID disasters continues: the other day, August 16, 2020, I watched TG1, just to see how far the propaganda had gone, and in half an hour of news, the first 15 minutes were completely dedicated to COVID-19! And one of the numbers used daily as a tool of outright psychological terrorism is the number of COVID-19 deaths worldwide: over 750,000! A number thrown out as if it were extraordinary, unprecedented…

Today, September 12, 2020, the number has risen to over 900,000:​

In reality, as we have seen, many of these COVID-19 deaths are mostly deaths from other causes “with” COVID (positive on the fake swab), and even deaths from other causes then passed off as COVID without even a positive swab. But let’s pretend they are real numbers: 911,000 deaths in 7 months. How many might there be in a year? The trend in deaths, after a peak in March, declined worldwide in June-September, and at the time I predicted about 1.5 million deaths attributed to COVID in a year.​

In reality, since in October-November, as we will see, there will be a rise in mortality (again, not due to COVID), after a year of pseudo-pandemic worldwide there were about 2 million deaths attributed to COVID, i.e., the same number of annual tuberculosis deaths1🦶25... and this tuberculosis figure has always been there, and no one ever dreamed of shutting down the world for tuberculosis, despite this disease being more lethal than COVID.​

In short, even with 2 million deaths worldwide in a year, assuming and not granted they are due to COVID-19, would it be an extraordinary number, a pandemic-level number? Looking at Bill Gates’ 2018 simulation of the next pandemic, one wouldn’t think so:​

According to this pandemic simulation by Gates’ team, the next pandemic (the current one) should have caused nearly 30 million deaths in just 5 months! While it caused only 900,000 in 7 months!​

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

Above all, what are the annual numbers of deaths worldwide from flu and respiratory diseases, the “area” in which COVID-19 falls? COVID is a respiratory pathology, inclusive of flu symptoms and pneumonias, both interstitial and thromboembolic, and what follows is the number of annual deaths worldwide from pneumonias and respiratory pathologies:​

In 2017, the total deaths from respiratory diseases (pneumonias) and respiratory infections (flu and similar) was 3.91 million + 2.56 million = 6,470,000 deaths! If we also add tuberculosis, considered a respiratory pathology as well, we reach a total of 7,650,000!​

Thus, even conceding as realistic the attribution of all two million COVID-19 deaths, we would still be at a fraction of deaths from respiratory causes. Unless it emerges that in 2020 total respiratory disease deaths rose to 10,000,000, one can only conclude that the usual respiratory deaths like flus and pneumonias were simply called by another name, COVID-19. And we are about to see that this is exactly what happened...​

THE LATEST 2020 ISTAT DATA
The propaganda of the health dictatorship continues
January 2021

Last May I picked apart the ISTAT report claiming a 49% mortality increase in the period February 20–March 31, and showed it was more propaganda than real.​

Over the months ISTAT has updated the data, up to the latest report published toward the end of December, picked up by all newspapers with headlines like that of Corriere Adriatico! Il Fatto Quotidiano had a similar headline, but specifying that the +84,000 deaths occurred between February and November 2020.​

One immediately wonders why select the period February-November, and not the more logical January-November. Because ISTAT claims COVID started in February, and thus giving this number from February to November already pushes to link the mortality increase to COVID, something that, as we will see, ISTAT itself clarifies cannot be asserted. Anyway, it’s perfect for the media, to give large numbers immediately seemingly linked to COVID, thus passing the subliminal message that COVID caused an 84,000-death increase. But in reality it’s not so, and cannot be asserted, as we are about to see.​

First, it must be stressed that, as usual, ISTAT goes out of its way to obscure or distort the real numbers. For instance, it presents a statistical comparison covering February to November, yet for 2020 alone it groups January and February together. This approach prevents independent verification — one is simply expected to take their word for it.

In fact, excluding January is illogical. Not only has it become widely acknowledged that the virus was already circulating by December 2019, but even ISTAT itself does not explicitly attribute the reported 84,000 excess deaths to COVID (except implicitly). These deaths could well stem from other causes, such as seasonal factors — especially since the cold season peaked in March 2020. Therefore, the most accurate comparison should include the entire January–November period of 2020.

Between January and November 2020, according to ISTAT data, there were 664,623 deaths in Italy. Yet even these figures are not fully comparable — nor entirely verifiable — since ISTAT itself admits that “the data on deaths in the second half of November cannot currently be considered fully consolidated.” Compared with the five-year average of roughly 583,396 deaths, 2020 shows an apparent increase of about 13.5%.

However, comparing a single year to a multi-year average tends to inflate the perceived significance of that year’s result. If we instead take 2017 as a reference point, the difference shrinks:

2020 — 664,623

2017 — 594,851

which equals an increase of approximately 11.7%.

The differential has lowered, and indeed one must recognize that there was an increase in mortality. Was it a truly unusual increase? It is a differential of 69,772 deaths.​

For example, the mortality differential between 2014 (598,364) and 2015 (647,571) was 49,207 deaths, a difference of 8.2%, thus lower than the 2020-2017 differential, but not by so much.​

If we then look at the differential between 2011 and 2017, a period when the population did not vary, the differential is 55,634, a 9.4% difference in favor of 2017. Here the difference with the 2020-2017 differential narrows even more, reducing to just 14,000 deaths, and 2.3%.​

In short, 2020 could certainly set a death record (if November numbers are confirmed and December remains high), but these are still numbers not excessively above ordinary year-to-year mortality variations, certainly not such as to scream “terrible pandemic.” And in fact no definitive conclusion can be drawn until December deaths are available, which could lower the differential and bring it back into the range of differences between different years we just saw. Certainly in 2020 there was a higher-than-usual number of deaths, if as seems we exceed 700,000. In fact, ISTAT President Blangiardo immediately declared to the media that, given over 700,000 deaths, 2020 takes us back to World War II times:​

As has been rightly noted, Blangiardo forgets to say, however, that in 1944 the Italian population was around 43 million, and thus for 2020 to be comparable to WWII deaths in 1944, with nearly 1/3 more population, 2020 should have had over 900,000 deaths! There, that mortality increase could have screamed possible, albeit still small, epidemic. Is it possible the ISTAT President doesn’t know these things? No, it’s not possible, but to maintain the fake pandemic news one must cling to anything.​

On the other hand, to understand how this year is not so different from usual, just see what the same Blangiardo said in 2015 in an interview on Il Fatto Quotidiano:​

“But let’s start from the origin of the mystery, demographer Gian Carlo Blangiardo’s analysis. From ISTAT data on the first seven months of 2015, Professor Blangiardo deduces a surplus of 39,000 deaths compared to the same period in 2014, ‘an 11% increase that, if confirmed annually, would bring 2015 deaths to 664,000 against 598,000 last year.’ A spike of 66,000 deaths (the estimate later revised to 68,000 with more recent data) that Blangiardo assimilates to those recorded only during the two world wars.”2🦶26​

Thus, even in 2015 Blangiardo cried an 11% death increase, exactly the difference between the restricted February-November 2020 period and 2017, and as today, cried WWII! But no one thought then to scream “epochal pandemic”!​

The truth is that, to speak of an epochal pandemic, as we saw above, 2020 should have at least 1 million deaths, compared to about 650,000 in recent years!​

And even so it would be a small pandemic, considering the Spanish flu (with all doubts remaining on whether it was a viral pandemic) caused over 50 million deaths; and that, as we saw, Bill Gates in 2018 predicted the next pandemic capable of 30 million excess deaths in just 5 months!​

To conclude this first part: there is no doubt that in 2020 something happened that slightly raised mortality; but it raised it to levels still within the possible variation delta, without any extraordinary leap, as one would expect from a true pandemic.​

And above all, as Blangiardo himself says, we are not talking about COVID deaths, but about: “... overall deaths (thus not only those caused by COVID).”​

Deaths from COVID?
In the period of January 30 to November 2020 there were 57,637 deaths attributed to COVID. The death increase in the same period would have been 83,985 deaths.​

Obviously, all media jumped to assert and make believe that COVID contributed 68% (57,637 / 83,985). But even here, it is a purely propagandist maneuver, favoured by the general setup of the ISTAT Report, even if ISTAT itself, albeit in a way that doesn’t stand out too much, states that:​

“It should be remembered, however, that the ratio between deaths reported to Integrated Surveillance and excess mortality in the February-November 2020 period cannot account for COVID-19’s actual contribution; this measure is indeed affected by methodological problems related to data consolidation (both Integrated Surveillance and Istat) and the difficulty in identifying deaths caused by COVID-19 when they occur in patients with numerous concomitant pathologies.”​

In fact it is true that, according to ISS and the American CDC itself, in 96% of deaths with COVID there was an average age of 84 years and serious pre-existing pathologies, three in 63% of cases, two in 20% of cases and one in 13% of cases. But if this data were accepted, then one simply shouldn’t speak of COVID and pandemic at all.​

Even if we accept the premise that all 57,000 recorded deaths were caused by COVID, they still cannot simply be counted among the 84,000 “excess deaths.” The reason is straightforward: such a claim would only be valid if COVID deaths were compared to those from respiratory and influenza-related diseases — the broader category to which COVID belongs. For instance, according to ISTAT data, in 2018 (the most recent year available) Italy reported 75,808 deaths from respiratory diseases.3🦶27​

COVID deaths as of December 31 were calculated at about 74,000. The only way to verify COVID’s contribution to the mortality increase is to measure the increment brought by COVID to the total respiratory pathologies. If respiratory pathologies in total became about 150,000, then COVID’s contribution will have been total. But if total respiratory deaths remain around 75-80,000, then it will be evident that COVID was nothing but another name for the usual respiratory pathologies, pneumonias, flus, etc.​

In fact, that this second hypothesis is likely is confirmed by various statistics on the near-disappearance of flu. For example, in the USA this is the comparative graph between flu cases in 2019 and 2020:​

As seen from the previous graphs, we went from a High or Very High flu situation in 2019 to Minimal in 2020. And the same is happening in Italy. According to the Influnet report of December 12, 2020, in the week from November 30 to December 6, the flu circulation rate was 1.9 cases per thousand inhabitants, against 3 cases per thousand last season (from 174,000 to 115,000 cases); and in the latest bulletin the gap is even greater:​

“In the 52nd week of 2020, the incidence of flu-like syndromes continues to be steadily below the baseline threshold with a value of 1.5 cases per thousand assisted. In the previous season in this same week the incidence level was 3.9 cases per thousand assisted.”4🦶28​

Since data on causes of mortality are not published except long after, even over a year later, a serious statistical body would do better to remain silent and wait for that data.​

ISTAT instead, while introducing caveats on the impossibility of assessing COVID’s contribution to excess mortality, attributes this impossibility to non-statistical reasons, and above all sets up its entire report on the continuous suggestion, more or less veiled, that the mortality increase is substantially linked to COVID. As we saw, from a statistical point of view, this is an assertion that cannot be made, and probably cannot be soundly made for at least another year.​

But if it wasn’t COVID, what could have caused this undeniable—but not pandemic-justifying—increase in deaths?​

Meanwhile, ISTAT states that “from late February to November, COVID-19 deaths represent 9.5% of total deaths.” In reality, this percentage is inflated: the correct figure is 57,637 ÷ 664,623 = 8.6%.

Excluding other possible considerations—which ISTAT does not address—the proportion of COVID-attributable deaths among the approximately 84,000 excess deaths is therefore 8.6%, corresponding to about 7,222 deaths. In other words, of the 83,985 excess deaths, only 7,222 can be attributed to COVID-19.

This means that the claim suggesting 57,000 COVID deaths account for over 60% of the mortality increase is unfounded. Of those 57,000 deaths “with COVID,” nearly 49,800 likely correspond to deaths that, in previous years, would have been classified as influenza or pneumonia. Consequently, the crucial question remains: what explains the remaining 76,763 excess deaths (83,985 – 7,222)?

I had already emphasized in my first analysis of the initial ISTAT report—and confirmed above with data from Bergamo and other cities—that the rise in mortality has largely been due to causes other than COVID-19. So, what really happened?

If we break down the data by periods, we find what ISTAT itself recognizes, namely that 2020 divides into three periods: the “first wave,” from February 20 to mid-May, where there was a fairly limited number of COVID positives but a high number of deaths; the intermediate phase, from mid-May to September, with very few cases and very few deaths; and then the aforementioned “second wave,” including October and November, where there was an explosion of positive cases, and also a substantial number of deaths with COVID, though fewer than in March. Let’s try to understand this dynamic well.​

First, if we take the first seven months, we already see that the ratios change:​

Period January-July
2020 - 426,289 deaths ÷ 2017 - 390,129 = +9.2%​

We had seen how a 9.4% increase had already occurred in the comparison between 2011 and 2017. Thus, even if 2020’s mortality increase over 2017 leads to a mini-record, 2017 being a high-mortality year, the size of the increase remains within known parameters.​

The important thing is to see how we went, in the 2020-2017 comparison, from a +9.2% differential in January-July to +11.7% in January-November: an increase of 2.5 percentage points.​

To understand how this jump occurred with the alleged “pandemic wave,” let’s look at this ISTAT graph:​

As can be seen, after the “first wave” (in quotes, because the very idea of “pandemic waves” is absurd), in which there were few positives (an average of 500 per day) against a small number of swabs (about 5,000 per day); there followed a phase where the number of swabs continued to increase, but the number of positives remained fixed near zero: despite about 10,000 swabs per day, in May-August positives continued to decrease. Interesting to note how only with the increase in swabs, which from September rose to 15-20,000 per day, the number of positives also starts to move, to begin a dizzying rise in both the number of swabs and positives starting in October and up to almost all of November.​

In essence, this graph confirms that it is a PCR pandemic. As can be seen, the increase in cases is perfectly parallel to the increase in swabs. This is an important datum: if the pandemic had truly risen in October and November, there should have been an increased ratio between cases and swabs, i.e., a higher percentage of positive cases for the same number of swabs. In concrete terms: in September, an average of 15,000 swabs were performed per day, producing about 1,500 positive cases. Since this graph is presented to justify the transition from a phase of pandemic cessation, in the months of June to September, to a pandemic explosion, the famous second wave, in October and November, this second wave should have led to, say, 3,500 positives still on the same 15,000 swabs. Instead, we do reach an average of 3,500 positives, but only because we go from 15,000 swabs in September to over 40,000 in November. From this point of view, one can say the opposite, namely that the pandemic, as defined by swab positivity, decreased in percentage, because if 1,500 cases out of 15,000 swabs are 10%, 3,500 cases out of 40,000 swabs are 8.75%.

Despite this decrease in the contagion rate—and thus of the alleged pandemic—deaths still increased:

How is it possible that, with the decrease in contagiousness, there is such a radical increase in deaths? To better understand the relevance of this datum, we must compare the period of the first wave with that of the second.

In March, at the supposed peak of contagion, Italy recorded about 800–900 deaths per day, yet the number of positive cases was only around 500–600. In other words, there were even more deaths attributed to COVID than confirmed positive cases — an absurd disparity that reflected what we denounced from the start: countless deaths were labeled as “COVID” without any verified positive swab, many of which were unreliable to begin with.

By contrast, in November, at the height of the so-called second wave, the daily toll stood at roughly 600–700 deaths — but this time against as many as 3,500 positives. The supposed lethality of SARS-CoV-2 therefore plummeted from over 100% to just 18.5%.

This dramatic collapse alone should have marked the official end of the “pandemic.” It clearly showed that, even assuming the virus existed as claimed, its alleged danger had diminished enormously. Yet, since this simple and statistically undeniable fact contradicts the dominant narrative, officials and media avoided any discussion of lethality. Instead, they kept repeating that November’s death numbers were “similar to March’s,” while ignoring that only a fraction of those deaths were truly attributable to COVID-19. In fact, between October and November, out of 134,737 total deaths, only 21,162 — about 15% — were linked to COVID.

This is a higher percentage than the annual average (9.5%), but still minimal compared to the total number of deaths. And if the low percentage of COVID on total deaths in March could even be justified with the excuse that not enough swabs were being done, this certainly cannot be said of October and November, where the number of swabs rose to 40,000 per day. Unfortunately for the pandemic narrative, this near-tenfold increase in swabs produced a strange mix of exponential increase in positives together with, oh horror, a reduction in the number of deaths compared to March! If we compare the March-April period, the peak of the first wave (February contributed only the last week and with a little over 1,000 deceased with COVID), and the October-November period, where the second wave allegedly exploded, we see that:

• COVID positives went from 207,794 in March-April to 1,329,324 in October-November (an increase of nearly 700%);

• total deaths went from 157,879 in March-April to 134,767 in October-November, a 15% reduction!

• COVID deaths went from about 30,000 in March-April to 21,162 in October-November, a 30% reduction!

What kind of pandemic is it where the infected multiply sevenfold and deaths, both total and with COVID, decrease?

ISTAT’s reply to this evident contradiction is that from March to October we learned to treat COVID, and thus despite the explosion of positives there are fewer deaths. But this justification doesn’t hold, because treatment protocols are exactly the same as in March and April, attempts to introduce new treatments like hydroxychloroquine were rejected, and home therapy protocols with drugs, which should have reduced hospital crowding, were presented by health authorities only on November 14, and have not yet been implemented, thus having no impact on the October-November period.5🦶29

And if it were true that the decrease in deaths despite the explosion of positives was due to the fact that we now know how to treat COVID, it is unclear why we must submit to the restrictions imposed on us, from more or less stringent lockdowns, to bans on gatherings, to masks, even mandatory all the time at school, or to vaccines!

The truth is that the second wave was, even more evidently than the first, a pandemic of swabs, of asymptomatic positives, who have now been established as neither infectious nor able to be contagious. In a previous article of mine, I reported a COVID swab certificate that was “honest”:

In this honest certificate it is clearly stated that, since the positivity result was obtained with more than 35 PCR cycles, “... such condition, in more than 95% of cases, is not associated with the presence of infectivity.”

As I urged at the time: why is this truth known to all not taken into consideration by politicians? After all, now even the WHO has taken a clear position on this. Let’s see the first WHO statement:

“The probability that a person who tests positive (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is actually infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as positivity rates decrease, net of test specificity. Therefore, health workers are encouraged to consider test results together with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed contacts, etc.”

This is a strong statement, because if the swab is in itself insufficient to establish actual COVID positivity without the support of “clinical signs and symptoms,” it is already evident that 90% of positives, who are asymptomatic, cannot be declared either infected or infectious. Already for this reason alone, all the numbers on positives sold to us in 2020 should be discarded, thus realizing that there was no pandemic. The WHO continues:

“The constructive principle of RT-PCR means that with patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect the virus and therefore the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when samples report a high Ct value, this means that many cycles were required to find the virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual virus presence is difficult to establish.”6🦶30

Despite the obvious expressive caution, the truth emerges clearly: if the virus is present in a sufficient form to make one sick and infect, few PCR cycles will be needed; if the virus is detected with too many cycles, it is very difficult to establish that it is not mere background noise. Here the position is clear-cut: it is not only that a result with over 30-35 cycles indicates a low viral load and thus non-infectious, but precisely that at this Ct level (PCR cycles), the results even detect not necessarily the virus but “background noise,” which has nothing to do with the virus. As we will see in the chapter on swabs, a series of important articles, and established PCR science, have established that the maximum PCR cycle level (Ct) for which a case can be considered positive is 20-25. We will see how at 30 Ct there is over 80% false positives, and at 34-35 Ct up to 100% false positives.

With the number of cycles normally used in Italy, generally above 35, and in the vast majority of cases above 40 and up to 60 cycles, the number of declared positives who are actually such collapses to 0%. Thus, even the huge numbers of positives in October and November reported by ISTAT, all obtained with PCR swabs performed with over 35 cycles, should be reduced to zero!

But with this true number they could not have screamed about the explosion of the second wave, and could not have continued their devastating lockdowns.

At this point, even the deaths attributed to COVID would have decreased, since all attributions of deaths to COVID were based on the positivity of the deceased, before or after death, to the PCR swab. This means that, to be generous, the number of deaths attributable to COVID in October and November, instead of 21,162, should be reduced to just 635 deaths, which represent just 0.47% of total deaths.

Even if one stubbornly insists on counting asymptomatic positives as “COVID cases,” we must still ask: what caused the actual mortality increase—modest as it was and hardly “pandemic”-level—given it clearly wasn’t due to COVID? After all, on an excess of 70,000 deaths, COVID accounts for just 9.5% per the ISTAT COVID-to-total deaths ratio (or 8.6%, as previously noted). And indeed, aware of the problem, ISTAT throws in a scarcely plausible explanation that somehow continues to link the mortality increase to COVID:

“Excess mortality was estimated by comparing, for the same period, 2020 data with the average deaths of the previous five-year period (2015-2019). In this way, it is implicitly assumed that the spread of the epidemic produces an increase in the frequency of deaths even not directly referable to COVID-19 surveillance, i.e., to the number of positive deceased cases.”

That is, as if the 2 million swabs performed were not enough, nor the numerous cases of deaths attributed to COVID without even a COVID swab performed (fake as it is worth), now ISTAT also wants to insinuate that even the excess deaths not referable to COVID are actually somehow linked to COVID. Well, I would say that in part this is possible, because COVID was above all a political-economic coup d’état, with the imposition of lockdowns and other devastating socio-economic limitations, and it is known that unemployment increase linked to lockdowns produces deaths. Indeed, another blow to ISTAT’s credibility is its insistence that lockdowns reduced road accident mortality, completely silencing what is known to science:

“Job loss causes extreme suffering. Every 1% increase in the unemployment rate increases the probability of drug overdose deaths by 3.3% and suicides by 0.99%, according to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the medical journal Lancet... Add then the predictable deaths from alcohol abuse caused by unemployment. Health economist Michael French from the University of Miami found a significant link between job loss and excessive alcohol use—even up to full-blown alcoholism.... The impact of layoffs goes beyond suicides, drug overdoses, and alcoholism anyway. In general, an unemployed person’s mortality rate is 63% higher than that of an employed person, according to data from the Journal Social Science & Medicine.”7🦶31

Sure, they can tell us they imposed hiring freezes and distributed redundancy pay. But this doesn’t apply to all small entrepreneurs and self-employed who haven’t been able to work for almost a year, and who in the best case received less than €1,000 total.

It doesn’t matter if fact-checkers say there was a pandemic. It doesn’t matter if Robert Malone says there was a pandemic. I know there was no pandemic. The reasons stack like bricks in a wall no one can tear down. In this post I will go through some of my evidence — not all of it.

Public health officials will swear COVID-19 was the “underlying cause” whenever it “triggered or exacerbated” death (respiratory failure, etc.). You think they’d want to admit that people died needlessly because of panic and deadly protocols?

They’ll claim it was COVID. Fine—but if victims had serious comorbidities, any cold or flu would’ve finished them. That doesn’t make it a pandemic. It makes it ordinary frailty meeting ordinary illness.

They’ll counter: “Yes, but COVID was more transmissible!” However, the testing — and the lack of testing at other times — shows that we cannot possibly know that one particular cold was the cause of these deaths. Early in 2020, when there were no tests available, it was simply assumed that anyone with symptoms had COVID. Later, when tests became available, those tests were clearly subject to errors, and test kits that showed more positives would obviously be bestsellers.

They changed the pandemic definition in 2009. The new definition is wrong. The years 2020 and beyond, when others were pandemicking, prove that this new 2009 definition is wrong.

Early in 2020 they defined a case as “probable” without testing. That can make something seem very transmissible — I agree. While less vulnerable people sometimes had extremely bad colds and then died, there is a reason for that too: it was put into people’s heads that they would get more sick. This can cause a nocebo effect.

Then, later in fall 2020, they began testing as much as possible. That was when they started the asymptomatic charade — where people had no symptoms but tested positive. If they later got into a car accident, they had of course died of COVID. No symptoms required — just a positive test and a death.

And this is a message for anyone who wants to show me that I am wrong — whether AI, Robert Malone, or whomever trying to “prove” me wrong: save your breath.. If authorities wanted people to believe anything, they never should have censored anyone. Now the whole thing can be called into question based on that alone. And the censorship is still in place around this subject. So if that censorship were to go away, it would be a step towards convincing me that there truly was a pandemic. That is not going to happen.

I was never scared throughout COVID. Only at the beginning for a week. After that I wanted to be set free. It was all bullshit to me. And the censorship proved to me that there was nothing to fear. Since everything was censored, later on everything can be denied. Even websites put out by Public Health are now gone if they showed any cracks. Censorship is tiring, and people just give up. It was very well planned.

And if someone wants to tell me something about the “vaccines” — I am sorry, but I don’t believe a word of anything about any vaccine. Nobody ever needed any vaccine. We needed to be able to speak, leave our homes, and be around each other. It is utter bullshit to believe any of this.

Evidence shows many people were given end-of-life drugs for having cold symptoms. Let’s stop beating around the bush. Of course there were huge spikes — people were murdered because they had a cold.

Fact-checks are censorship. That is all it is.

Wherever I speak about this online, my account gets stifled — again proving to me that there was no pandemic. If there had been a pandemic, my voice would not need to be smothered.

My X account? Tagged “sensitive content.” I was there on Twitter which it was called during the time— arguing relentlessly against the believers. Search my old COVID posts? Gone. Erased. As if I vanished from 2020–2021 onward.

BiologyPhenom was banned from X in 2024 and X never responded to any of his questions about why, or to let him back on or anything.

Many other individual accounts covering what happened in Canada, the UK, and Scotland in detail — especially critical takes on the inquiries in Scotland and the UK — faced bans or restrictions. Bans in 2024 for such content often went unexplained (no response to appeals or reinstatement requests). X’s moderation has been inconsistent on inquiry-related posts; some get flagged under “misinformation” or other rules, even if it is factual reporting. If there was truly a pandemic, no account that reviewed what had actually happened in 2020 and after with the “vaccines” would be flagged, restricted, or banned. A pandemic is not so sensitive to criticism. It holds strong against any criticism. A pandemic is like the truth — it is undeniable. That is why any censorship proves that there was no pandemic.

So ask yourself: Isn’t it far more worthwhile to hammer home—with mountains of evidence—that there was never any need for a vaccine? Amid 2020’s censorship and lockdowns, they expect us to forget: most “COVID deaths” had major comorbidities or were well past life expectancy. Many young deaths? Drug overdoses, not a virus.

2+2=4.

There was no pandemic.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

I finally realized why I keep saying this: while I still have symptoms, their severity has greatly reduced. Much of what I’ve been doing involves natural health supplements—a former subscriber who blocked me disliked my suggestion that supplements can aid healing. But my experience shows they can! There’s more to it than just supplements, though.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I don’t want to share more details yet—I’m still aiming for full recovery. Sharing too soon might jinx it, or it might not work out. Let’s wait until I’m certain. Until then, I don’t want to mislead anyone.

It’s not quick, and I’m not sure how much longer full recovery will take. I hope you’ll stick around with patience to learn what I confronted and how.

In the meantime, here are recommendations based on my experiences. Your results may differ—we all face unique issues. It’s hard to pinpoint the most important steps since I don’t live in a test tube.

Key Recommendations

Here’s a list of things that have helped me:

• Read Super Gut by William Davis. I’ve read and re-read it for clarity. The protocol is complex, so I created checklists to track daily actions and implement as many elements as possible. It’s my personalized version guided by the book—I can’t complete everything daily, but the checklists keep me accountable.

• Eat fermented foods. Learn to make homemade fermented vegetables like sauerkraut and pickles. Include kefir and yogurt.

• Eat prebiotic foods. Here’s a short list to add to your diet (read the book for more): radishes, hummus, legumes, green bananas, asparagus, garlic, onions, avocados, mushrooms, raw or dry-roasted nuts and seeds (with skins).

• Cut carbs (except prebiotic fibers). Avoid sugar, starchy foods, alcohol, and processed foods.

• Learn Buteyko and diaphragm breathing.
  Diaphragm breathing became easier for me once I understood the anatomy—watch this short video on the diaphragm. Visualize it expanding downward on inhale to fill your lungs. Breathe slowly and smoothly (not too slow); here’s a video for good pacing. The visualization helps most on inhale; exhale naturally. Let me know in comments if exhale feels tricky!
  https://youtube.com/shorts/RtfhgxddRtc
  

• Follow the 80% rule (Hara Hachi Bu). This Okinawan practice advises stopping at 80% full to prevent overeating, cut calories, manage weight, and promote longevity. [Wikipedia]

• Eat SuperGut yogurt daily. Recipe: https://substack.com/@xrenee0/p-183780610

Since I often revisit my blog for the SuperGut yogurt recipe, here’s another one for this post: Bacillus subtilis “yogurt” (technically fermented dairy, so don’t be misled by the term). This isn’t in Super Gut, but I’m attaching it here.

B Subtilis HU58 Fermented Dairy (Yogurt)

Bacillus subtilis HU58 is a robust, spore-based probiotic known for 100% survivability through harsh stomach acid, significantly enhancing gut health by balancing microbiota and increasing short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production by 40%. It supports digestive function, boosts immune responses, improves gut barrier integrity, and is often used to manage IBS, bloating, and leaky gut. 1

The purpose of the recipe is to activate this microbe through prolonged fermentation. In this process, a small amount of added sugar serves as food for the bacteria, allowing them to multiply more rapidly and achieve higher concentrations for stronger and faster effects. 8 servings.

🥛 Ingredients

• 1 quart whole milk (no additives)

• 2 Tbsp sugar

• 1 capsule Bacillus Subtilis HU58

🛠️ Equipment

• 🫙 1 quart glass jar (or other glass containers used with your yogurt maker)

• 🥄 Spoon/silicone spatula/ whisk

• 🥣 Small bowl for slurry

• 🌡️ Yogurt maker or sous vide (90°F precise)

• ❄️ Freezer trays/bags for starters

  👩‍🍳 Instructions

1. Heat Milk: Pour milk into saucepan. Heat to 180°F (82°C), stirring occasionally. Cool to below 90°F (32°C).

2. Slurry: Mix 2 Tbsp sugar + 2 Tbsp cooled milk in a bowl. Sprinkle the sugar slowly to the milk while whisking for best results. Stir gently until dissolved. Add opened probiotic capsule, or 2 Tbsp of previous batch; blend softly.

3. Combine: Pour slurry into jar(s) with remaining cooled milk. Stir evenly. Lid loosely.

4. Ferment: Place on trivet in device at 90°F (32°C) for 24 hours. Curds/whey separation is normal.

5. Cool & Store: Refrigerate 4+ hours. Thick, tart, fresh-smelling result.

🔄 Culture Maintenance

• Save 2 Tbsp per batch in freezer trays (label “B Subtilis HU 58 Gen 1”). Thaw overnight for next use.

• Restart with capsules after 6 generations. Ideal for travel!

💡 Notes

• the first batch may not turn out as well as subsequent batches, for this reason it makes sense to save the first batch as a starter.

• studies have found that patients diagnosed with IBS reported an increase in their quality of life, less worry over their health concerns, and even improvement in their anxiety and depression after using soil-based probiotics.

• mild, creamy, sometimes even minty flavour

• Use only pure dairy (milk only).

• Benefits: Gut healing, reduced inflammation (patience required, 2 months).

At around 36 minutes into the interview, Robert mentions that “the… lab leak hypothesis… is allowed. You’re allowed in D.C. now to talk about that.” As if this is some kind of victory. However, as many have noted, this is no victory—it’s just another example of disease mongering. 123

At around 49 minutes into the chat, Robert mentions Twitter. He says:

Joe replies:

And Robert agrees:

Joe says:

However, I think there is a mistake here too. Because after Elon purchased X, my experience is that it only got worse. I have experienced far more shadow banning there than I did prior to the purchase. Even after I paid for a premium account, my account was hidden for “sensitive content.” I was never told what “sensitive content” I had posted—so how would I know what to avoid posting in the future?

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

Robert mentions that he now makes his living on Substack. I have something to say about that too. I suppose he is suggesting that his Substack is about “health freedom,” and I have a question that he will never answer.

If you can make a living posting about health freedom on Substack, where is your motivation to actually succeed in delivering health freedom? If it’s delivered, you would be out of a job.

The online environment rewards people like Robert Malone who advertise for pharma. It doesn’t matter which drug they advertise. It’s also fine to discuss lab leaks because it validates the idea that people didn’t catch a cold in 2020—they caught a deadly novel virus, which may be even more dangerous due to it being man-made. Again, disease mongering. Advertising for pharma as well, under the guise of “health freedom.”

Later, he brings up ivermectin and Tess Lawrie. Tess Lawrie is a big advocate of ivermectin. But for some reason, he decided not to bring up midazolam4 and the deadly protocols used all over the world to treat this cold. If not for these deadly protocols, it’s unlikely we would have seen higher deaths than usual. But the deadly protocols amped up the numbers, which allows Robert and Joe to banter about gain of function.

Robert chose not to talk about the time he was in a video conference call with Tess Lawrie and four others, where she talks about a paper she submitted to the BMJ that was rejected. In her paper, she reviewed data out of Scotland and points out that:

“So it looks like people were dying at home and probably from cancer, circulatory disease, dementia, when they would have been in hospital. So it’s probably... I think what this shows is that there was a fallout from the lockdowns and all of that, but also that the respiratory deaths from flu and pneumonia and all the usual things were simply loaded up as COVID deaths and not pneumonia or flu. And of course, all deaths were registered as deaths with a positive PCR test. It was dying with COVID, not from COVID.”

I suppose this wouldn’t be something Joe and Robert will ever talk about—because that is not how Robert sees COVID. Remember, he had COVID and was “sick as a dog,” and after he took some Pepto-Bismol—presto—he had Long COVID.

Tess Lawrie clip came from this episode of the Defender:

As an example of what happens when party representatives defy the party line, we can look at a few cases from the so-called “pandemic.” In June 2021, a protest took place at the border between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.1 The protest was against restrictions requiring travellers from New Brunswick to self-isolate upon arrival in Nova Scotia. This protest received support from Provincial MLA Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin (Cumberland North, Amherst, Nova Scotia), who posted a video on her Facebook account encouraging participation. Soon after her involvement, she was expelled from the Progressive Conservative Party by Tim Houston, now the Premier of Nova Scotia.2

Smith-McCrossin continues to serve as MLA to this day, now as an Independent with no party affiliation.

There are other examples of representatives being removed from their parties during COVID, such as Roman Baber, formerly of Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party, who was expelled in January 2021 after speaking out against lockdown policies.3

Independent NS proposes that in every riding of Nova Scotia, citizens should seek out someone they trust to represent them as an independent candidate in each election. Anyone willing to take on this challenge would be expected to represent the people—not any political party. The benefits of having independents include the following:

“Independent representatives will have a free vote on all new laws, not restricted to voting as they are told by the party whip or leader. They can table legislation that helps all of us without biased party approval. Ideas such as recall for lying to constituents or removing pensions for politicians after two years of service have already been suggested.”4

However, in 2021, after being elected Premier, Conservative leader Tim Houston introduced new reforms to the Nova Scotia Elections Act. These reforms appear to restrict access for anyone without party backing.

For instance, when my friend decided to run as a candidate, she needed to appoint an official agent—a role she asked me to fill. The official agent must complete ten separate forms each year concerning donations and fundraising. In our case, all forms were filled with zeros, as we received no donations and held no fundraisers. Another obstacle is that each candidate must also retain a chartered accountant. Because of this requirement, my friend’s name did not even appear on the ballot in our riding.

During the last election, Premier Tim Houston called a snap election5—ironically, something prohibited under his own new legislation. This sudden move made it impossible to find a chartered accountant in time, especially since there is already a shortage of qualified accountants eligible for this role.

This situation illustrates how the latest election law reforms have not served to benefit the public. Instead, these changes appear deliberately designed to discourage ordinary citizens from participating as independent candidates in provincial elections, contrary to the government’s stated claim that the reforms would promote fairness.

I’m only 45 minutes into it, but I already have a few things to say.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

It’s not that Joe Rogan ever doubted him, but in the interview, Robert Malone assures us that COVID is real—because he had it. And not only is COVID real, but so is Long COVID, because he had that too.

He also mentions that the American government (and others) have “nudge units.” It goes by a different name, but the point is that endless propaganda is being pushed at people, nudging them toward what they should believe and how they should behave.

But what if he is part of that? Of course, the government wants us all to believe that COVID is real—and that Long COVID is too. Malone presents a story claiming that he had both and that they’re real. Just because he says something outside the mainstream narrative—such as that the vaccine wasn’t safe and that he was injured by it—doesn’t mean his purpose isn’t to confirm that COVID and Long COVID are real. He may be doing the “vaccine injured” performance to convince us that he’s a credible witness on everything else.

One part i found particularly interesting was when Robert talked about his Long COVID and Joe asked whether he had tried any treatments. At that point, Robert went into detail about how he first learned about the “real” COVID from a former CIA colleague, Michael Callahan. Callahan suggested that he should put together a team to rapidly identify repurposed drugs, as he had done before. Malone explains that he had previously worked at USAMRIID during the Zika outbreak doing the same thing. So he went ahead and put together a team focused on finding repurposed drugs.

Of course—since he had COVID (trust him, he really had it)—he was “sick as a dog” and thought, What have I got to lose? I’m probably going to die. So he decided to experiment on himself, trying one or two of the substances his team had discovered using computational docking of very large virtual libraries of possible repurposed drugs. He tried famotidine, an acid blocker commonly used for GERD, heartburn, and stomach ulcers. He says he got an immediate response—but doesn’t specify what kind. Was that “immediate response” Long COVID? I’m leaning that way.

Anyway, that clears it all up: COVID was real! Long COVID is real! And apparently, you can get Long COVID even faster if you take some Pepcid AC.

I may have more thoughts to share on this later. That’s all for now—thanks for stopping by!123

The book is also listed on Amazon, where it has 62 reviews and a 4.7-star rating. One reviewer wrote: “Serious researcher. They should include it among the textbooks in schools throughout that entire part of the world that was deceived with the fear of the virus.”1

THE EUROMOMO GRAPH

As confirmation that there was no increase in mortality due to a pandemic—and thus no pandemic—the European agency EuroMomo, which records mortality across the continent, published the following map on July 31, 2020:

As seen in the choropleth map2, across almost the entire continent, except for a slight increase in Spain and Portugal, there was no excess mortality. In subsequent months, perhaps sharply reprimanded by European politicians, EuroMomo tried to remedy the error of telling the truth and continues to publish statistics titled “Increase in Mortality,” headlines that prove entirely unfounded when examined in detail.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

But the choropleth map was published, and it confirms the thesis that there was no increase in mortality—and thus no pandemic—as shown by my analysis of the ISTAT Report on mortality. But then, if there is no pandemic causing deaths, why are we continuing to do lockdowns and extend the state of emergency? Thanks to the invention of the new pathology of “asymptomaticity”: just test positive on a COVID-19 swab and you’re considered sick, and to this is added outright manipulation of COVID-19 mortality data.

MANIPULATION OF COVID-19 TESTS AS THE ENGINE OF THE PERPETUAL PANDEMIC

Saturday, July 25, 2020

We will examine in more detail—in a subsequent chapter and from both technical-scientific and legal viewpoints—how the indefinite extension of the pandemic rested on the definition of the new pathology of asymptomaticity. At the base of this program lies the use of completely unreliable swab tests, which the EU itself defined as invalid (never authorized or validated). But today, I want to emphasize a maneuver of clear, conscious data manipulation—and COVID case definition criteria so absurd they surpass the barrier of the ridiculous (if it weren’t tragic). This maneuver was developed by the American CDC.

What is happening in the USA has now become central for Italy as well. In Italy, it is now difficult to find deaths classified as COVID-19, or even a decent number of infected people. Here, the government justifies its attempts to extend the emergency and lockdown (perhaps only partial) through appeals to the international situation. Thus, Minister Speranza (”Corriere della Sera”, July 21, 2020) states:

The reference is mainly to the US situation, where every day tens of thousands of cases of asymptomatic infected are reported, given enormous weight by the regime media, despite deaths being fewer and fewer and ICU wards emptier and emptier. Thus, even today the CDC (the US health institute, until a few days ago directly responsible for counting COVID deaths and infected) reports as many as 70,000 new infected in a single day.

In fact, it is a very high number of infected, and Trump dismissed it saying it’s due to doing many more swabs than before. This is true, but only in part: it’s true that with fake swabs you get huge numbers of false positives, but here there’s a more specific element of malice and manipulation concerning the new COVID definition introduced by the CDC last April, circulated in May, which produced its first results starting in June up to the current explosion. If you look closely, even in the document shown above, it doesn’t speak of “positives” for COVID-19, but of cases. Yes, because under the CDC’s new definition, for a case to be defined as COVID-19 you don’t even need to test positive on the swab test; it’s enough that the case is “probable”.

(https://www.cdc.gov/ndc/conditions/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/casedefinition/2020/4/) The link doesn’t work, maybe it was this one: https://ndc.services.cdc.gov/case-definitions/coronavirus-disease-2019-2020-08-05/

And how is a “probable” case defined?

That is, for a case to be probable—and thus count as a full COVID case—it’s enough to have epidemiologic evidence and clinical [evidence]. These two parameters are defined by the CDC as follows:

Epidemiologic Linkage:
One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days prior to symptom onset:

• Close contact with a confirmed or probable COVID-19 case; OR

• Close contact with a person with a clinically compatible illness and linkage to a confirmed COVID-19 case.

• Travel or residence in an area with sustained and current community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

• Being a member of a risk group as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.

  ---

  ---

Thus, for the epidemiologic element to exist, beyond close contact (having been within 2 meters distance for at least 10 minutes) with a confirmed or even just probable case in the last 14 days, it’s enough to reside in an area considered at COVID risk: this practically makes all citizens of states whose governors have declared a state of emergency, like New York and California, potential probable (and thus certified) COVID-19 cases. And for full certification as a COVID-19 case, it’s enough to meet the other criterion, the clinical one:

Clinical Criteria:

• At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or perceived), chills, rigors, aches, headache, sore throat, new loss of taste or smell

• At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing

• A severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:

  • Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia

  • Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
    And no alternative diagnosis more likely.

Thus, for the clinical criterion to be met it’s enough to have two symptoms among fever (even subjectively perceived), chills, rigors, aches (myalgias), headache, sore throat, new disorders of smell and taste; or just one symptom among cough, shortness of breath, or breathing difficulties. In short, if you live in a state whose governor has declared a state of emergency, and you have a headache along with tremors, or aches and joint stiffness, or even just a cough, you immediately become a “probable” COVID case, meaning you are immediately counted as a COVID case. And since, once a COVID case is established, all those who have been in contact with the subject are automatically suspected of COVID to be tested or checked for symptoms like cough, or headache + aches, it’s evident how the number of COVID cases can rise rapidly. And it’s also thanks to this that there has been the explosion of COVID cases which, even if asymptomatic, serve to maintain the rhetoric of the pandemic and the still-imminent danger that thus requires further lockdowns. At a certain point, Trump realized these CDC tricks and decided that data should no longer be reported by states to the CDC, but to a specific committee at the White House. And a few days after this move, the first corrections to the crazy numbers disseminated by the CDC arrived:

Here we see how, after journalists investigated and found that some labs were not reporting negative tests and always giving 100% positivity rates, it emerged that the positivity rate, instead of 98%, was just 9.4%! A big difference, which can hardly result from an accidental error, and can only be the fruit of outright fraud on the numbers. Things weren’t much different in Texas either: Texas health officials removed as many as 3,824 deaths attributed to COVID-19 under CDC criteria, i.e., having been considered “probable” cases without ever being tested with swabs or serological tests.

And the issue doesn’t stop at the USA, since the same problem of hyper-counting COVID deaths and cases (which we Italians know well) has also emerged in the UK, where they stopped the daily count of deaths when it emerged that Public Health England (PHE) had greatly exaggerated the number of COVID deaths:

As the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford itself pointed out, PHE counted as COVID deaths even those who had recovered, been discharged, and then perhaps died later of heart attack or car accident. This mania for counting even car accident deaths as COVID deaths seems very widespread, if it’s true that even in Florida a young man killed in a motorcycle accident was reported as dead from COVID:

The journalist even reports that the doctor responsible for the case told him that in his opinion the car accident may actually have been caused by COVID-19!!!

I recall how these falsifications are common in Italy too. I myself made a post on FB (https://www.facebook.com/ScoglioStefano NOTE: link does not work…post from June 15) where I reported two cases of over-80s who died from end-stage cancer, classified as COVID-19 without even being swabbed, and taken from the family with no possibility of autopsy... and in the comments on the post, both on my page and profile, there are at least another 50 testimonies of similar cases!

To conclude this contribution of mine centered on the epidemiology of the false pandemic, coming to the latest available numbers. Let’s start by saying that the biggest change happened precisely in the USA, thanks to Trump. The US President decided to take control of the US Deep State health structures, FDA and CDC, and imposed new criteria on them for calculating COVID-19 and its mortality. First, under pressure from the President, the CDC changed its policy on COVID tests, and now recommends doing swab tests only on individuals with clear COVID-19 symptoms, thus eliminating the buffoonery of seeking out as many asymptomatics as possible and passing them off as dangerously contagious sick people:

Unfortunately, with the approaching US elections, the practice of inflating the number of deaths resumed unabated, because the Democrats and Deep State knew that only by maintaining the idea of a serious pandemic could they push for mail-in voting, to carry out the biggest electoral fraud in history. But for a while, it seemed the pseudo-pandemic had its days numbered.

Even Italian TV news, after weeks of bombarding us every day with alarmist news on the number of US infected, rather than saying that very few infected remain, decided to avoid talking about COVID-19 in the USA altogether. This must also have been contributed to by the latest American CDC document, which re-evaluated all deaths with COVID-19, doing what the Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità had done, i.e., removing from the death count all those who had serious concomitant or pre-existing pathologies:

“In 6% of deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause of death listed. For deaths with conditions in addition to COVID-19, on average there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes of death.”🦶note 223

It must have been hard for the CDC, the main engine of the pandemic along with the WHO, to have to admit that 94% of deaths attributed to COVID-19 are actually attributable to other pathologies, mostly at least three other pathologies. This recalls the data from the Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità, which specified that only a minimal percentage of deaths had no other serious pathologies, and that even in the latest version of its analysis, confirms a datum even more radical than that of the American CDC:

In other words, only 3.8% of deaths recorded as COVID would be truly attributable to COVID itself . To this is added the data on the average age of deaths WITH COVID-19:

“The average age of deceased patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 is 80 years (median 82, range 0-109, InterQuartile Range - IQR 74-88).”🦶note 234

In the USA the average age was even set at 84 years, and since life expectancy in the 1940s (the birth period of our 80-year-olds) was 60-65 years🦶note 245, deaths at 80-84 years had already lived 15-20 years beyond their life expectancy (and even 30 years more in the case of the numerous over-90s who died), which cannot be irrelevant in evaluating mortality incidence.

This too confirms there was no pandemic at all. Whatever happened with COVID-19, we can say its essence was much ado about nothing...

The book was published on December 14, 2021, shortly before the Freedom Convoy took place in Ottawa in January 2022.

Donate to Far Side of Fringe

The publisher is Poliphylia.1 It is still available for sale on the Poliphylia website for €26.60 (approximately 42.87 Canadian dollars). The book is also listed on Amazon, where it has 62 reviews and a 4.7-star rating. One reviewer wrote: “A clear and lucid treatment. A book rich in scientific data supporting the topics discussed. Demanding, precise, and professional reading.”2

FIRST QUARTER 2020: EXCEPTIONAL MORTALITY?

The stubborn pandemist might insist, claiming that anyway, if we consider the entire quarter or just the month of March, this exceptional mortality would be confirmed. On the other hand, ISTAT/ISS told us that for March alone there was a 49.4% increase, and this is in fact the highest number of all, the one that made the front pages of newspapers.

Since ISTAT/ISS give us only the percentage without any supporting numbers, and thus without any possibility of direct verification (and the lack of verifiability makes the ISTAT/ISS report an anti-scientific document), we have to continue reconstructing...

We have the number for the period February 20–March 31: to get the specific number of deaths for March 2020 alone, we must subtract the share of the 10 days of February. In doing this operation, we will also discover the data for February and January 2020, and thus the approximate total for the first quarter of 2020. ISTAT President Blangiardo, in his recent report, writes:

The deaths in January and February 2019 were, according to ISTAT data, respectively 68,209 (and already here we would have a month even closer to the number of March 2020 deaths) and 59,876. To estimate the number of deaths in the first two months of 2020 based on these 2019 data, we add the two numbers and then apply an average reduction of 8.5% (average of 8% and 9%), obtaining:

68,209 + 59,876 = 128,085 128,085 - 8.5% = 117,197

These are the approximate deaths for the first two months of 2020.

To establish the specific number for March, we must subtract from the figure of 90,946, which refers to the period 20-2/31-3 2020, the share relating to the last 10 days of February: from the February number, 59,876, we subtract 9%, divide by 29 days of February, multiply by 10 (the last 10 days included in the ISTAT number for the period of February 20th to March 31st), and obtain:

59,876 - 9% = 54,487.16 54,487.16 / 28 x 10 = 19,459

19,459 is the number of deaths in the period February 20–29, 2020. Subtracting this number from the ISTAT total of 90,946 for the period 20-2/31-3, we get:

90,946 - 19,459 = 71,487

The very probable figure for March 2020 deaths is 71,487. Adding this figure to that of the first two months’ deaths, we have: 117,197 + 71,487 = 188,684

Thus, the total deaths in Italy for the first quarter of 2020 is about 188,684. And in the same period in previous years? According to ISTAT data, these are the numbers for the first quarters of the previous 5 years:

2019 - 185,967

2018 - 184,991

2017 - 192,045

2016 - 166,965

2015 - 188,072

As can be seen, the number of deaths in the first three months of 2020 is substantially identical to that of 2015, and even lower than the first quarter of 2017! Therefore, first-quarter 2020 deaths are absolutely within normal annual variations; there is no pandemic mortality!

MARCH 2020: EXCEPTIONAL MORTALITY?

And March 2020, the fulcrum of the “worst pandemic since World War II,” presumably overwhelmed by an unprecedented number of deaths? The figure, as we saw, is about 71,487, and this should be the figure that ISTAT/ISS told us was 49.4% higher than the average March deaths of the previous 5 years. Let’s see if it’s true. These are the March deaths of the 5 years prior to 2020:

2015 - 61,581
2016 - 56,401
2017 - 58,198
2018 - 58,593
2019 - 57,882
=292,655

Average March months 2015-2019 = 292,655 / 5 = 58,531

Excess March 2020 deaths compared to average March of previous 5 years:

71,487 / 58,531 = 1.22 = +22%

The increase compared to the average is thus only 22%... less than half of that 49.4% trumpeted by ISTAT/ISS and then by the media! But the truth is that this number can only be obtained by comparing March 2020 with the average of the previous 5 March months, because, as we know, the average gives a lower result, and thus this year’s number can make a better showing (so to speak). But if we take, for example, the number of deaths in March 2015, when there were 61,581 deaths, the ratio drops to:

71,487 / 61,581 = 1.16 = +16%.

The stubborn pandemist would cling to this number anyway, claiming that March 2020 was the March with the highest mortality compared to all previous Marches. True, 16%, a percentage not too dignified for the worst pandemic of the last century.

Above all, it must be considered that March 2020 was a very particular March, the true winter month of the season: January and the first half of February 2020 had spring-like weather, and winter began at the end of February and throughout March. To understand how this 16% increase is completely normal, just think that, as we saw and as confirmed by ISTAT President Blangiardo, January had 9% lower mortality and February 8% lower: the 16% more in March is nothing but compensation for the 17% (9%+8%) lower mortality in the first two months of the year. Thus, there was in fact only a shift of winter to March, with the typical increase in mortality of the winter season.

This is why it is plausible that this year’s March, compared to previous Marches, turns out to have more deaths, always among those very sick elderly who generally succumb precisely in the flu season. And this is why the comparison must be extended to all winter months of previous years, otherwise there is a risk of passing off a simple seasonal change as a pandemic!

And indeed, to demonstrate that the number of deaths in March 2020 is absolutely exceptional and thus potentially pandemic, its mortality must be far higher than any other month, not just Marches. And we have already seen how in January 2019, just over a year ago, there were 68,209 deaths: here the difference with March 2020 would be just +4.8%, a trifle.

And finally, in January 2017 as many as 75,623 people died! January 2017 - 75,623 deaths; March 2020 - 71,487 deaths = 1.057

That is, in January 2017 there were nearly 6% more deaths than in March 2020, but no one dreamed of talking about a pandemic or shutting down the entire nation for months!

In other words, March 2020 had more deaths than previous Marches only because this year the flu season was very late, with January and February warm (and indeed with fewer deaths than usual), and it occurred in March, hitting as always only very elderly and sick people. And it is therefore evident that ISTAT, by choosing a misaligned period in comparison with previous years, focusing only on one month, and often making calculation errors (?) or obscuring the numbers, clearly tried to inflate a pandemic that, neither in the calculation of the first three months nor in the comparison of March 2020, actually existed.

FEW EX-COVID-19 DEATHS, ONLY IN THE NORTH

At this point we can proceed to dismantle the entire framework of the ISTAT/ISS report, where it states:

We have already seen how these numbers are falsified by the wrong calculation of the 2015-2019 average, which is actually 79,172; with the difference reducing to: 90,946 - 79,172 = 11,774 more deaths in the period of February 20th to March 31st of 2020 compared to the same period the previous year. Only 54% of these, says ISTAT/ISS, is attributable to COVID-19, thus: 6,357 ex-COVID-19 deaths in the peak period of the most terrible pandemic ever remembered, 0.010% of the Italian population. But it doesn’t end there. ISTAT adds:

Apart from not understanding how it was possible to go from the 97% of cases with serious concomitant pathologies initially established by ISS to a much lower 34% (what happened in the second half of the period, did only young healthy people die?); even accepting the 34% figure for serious comorbidities, this 34% should be eliminated from confirmed COVID-19 cases, and thus we would drop to 4,195 deaths from COVID-19 in the most terrible pandemic period from February 20 to March 31; 0.0069% of the Italian population.

We are obviously talking about trifles, given that the average number of monthly deaths in Italy in the winter period is about 60,000, and for the period in question, which adds another 1/3 of a month, would be as much as 80,000, of which thus only a little over 4,000 would be due to COVID-19. And this would be the pandemic?

There is also a further aspect that denies the existence of a pandemic. ISTAT writes:

We have shown above how these are clearly inflated numbers. Here we are told that 91% of these deaths are in the 37 Northern provinces + Pesaro-Urbino. This means that the true number of deaths attributable to COVID-19 in these 38 provinces would be not 12,156, but just 3,817 (4,195 x 91%). ISTAT adds:

Thus, in the other 35 Central-Northern provinces there would be only 1,151 coronavirus deaths. Even here, if we correct based on the reduction from +25,354 to +11,680 excess cases, we would have just 529 deaths! Further purged of the 34% of cases with serious concomitant pathologies, that would give only 349 COVID-19 deaths! And finally,

In the last third of the provinces, March deaths this year actually decreased, even if only by 1.8%: a further methodological flaw, since the analyses of the previous two provincial groups refer to the period of February 20th to March 31st, while this one on Southern provinces refers only to the month of March. And since this data, going against the narrative of the terrible pandemic, is of no interest to ISTAT—in fact, it must be minimized—here too ISTAT does not tell us what numbers that -1.8% percentage corresponds to!

Thus, there would have been an increase of 3,817 deaths in the North; 349 in Central-North; and even a 1.8% reduction in the South. Whatever the real number of this 1.8% is, it is surely more than enough to more than compensate for the Central-North figure, which is therefore canceled out in the excess deaths count.

It follows, from the appropriately reprocessed ISTAT data, that there were only 3,817 COVID-19 deaths in Italy (in my opinion not even that many), and practically all in the North, while in 2/3 of Italy NOTHING HAPPENED!!! Someone needs to explain to me how it can be a pandemic when 2/3 of a country are completely spared from any increase in mortality! And above all, someone should explain the reason for shutting down an entire nation for months for a few thousand deaths, equal to the normal deaths in a couple of days, and all concentrated only in 1/3 of the nation itself.

The truth is that, even assuming the ISTAT numbers for the period they presented are real (and they are not), we would have 12,156 deaths (which should at least be purged of the 34% of deaths with other serious concomitant pathologies; but never mind).

Is this an exceptional number? If we project the number of deaths from the 41 days of February 20th to March 31st onto a 3-month period (90 days), we get:

12,156 / 41 days x 90 days = 26,676

According to ISTAT, there would have been about 26,676 deaths caused by COVID-19 in this year’s first quarter. We have seen that this is not true, but even if it were, would it be an exceptional number? Epidemiologist Stefano Petti, professor at La Sapienza, writes:

Thus, in 2015 for respiratory pathologies, 45,000 excess deaths occurred in the three months from January to March, almost double those now attributed to COVID-19 (26,676) by ISTAT/ISS for the same 2020 period. Further proof that this year’s mortality, including that attributed to COVID-19, is absolutely within normal periodic variation levels.

STRANGE DEATHS IN THE HARDEST-HIT CITIES

From the ISTAT document emerges another interesting datum, which should stimulate more specific research and raises not a few questions that health and political authorities should answer. When ISTAT deals with the individual hardest-hit cities, this is what emerges:

In the province of Bergamo there would have been a 567% increase in mortality, an enormous number. In concrete terms, deaths went from 1,180 (average March deaths over the previous 5 years) to 6,238 in March 2020, an exceptional jump (even if limited to one city). But if we look closer, we see that of these 6,238 deaths, only 2,346 are attributed to COVID-19, meaning that the vast majority of deaths, nearly 4,000, 2/3, are due to something other than COVID-19, and to a large extent. The effective mortality increases would be as follows:

2,346 : 1,180 = 1.98 Increase in deaths WITH COVID-19 = +98%
3,892 : 1,180 = 3.29 Increase in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 = +229%

The real problem of Italian mortality in these months of the alleged pandemic appears overwhelmingly to be something other than COVID-19!

And it’s not an isolated case; the same thing happens in other affected cities:

In Brescia, only 1,574 deaths WITH COVID-19 out of 4,450 total deaths:
1,574 : 1,385 = 1.13 Increase in deaths WITH COVID-19 = +13%
2,876 : 1,385 = 2.07 Increase in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 = +107%

In Cremona, 687 deaths WITH COVID-19 out of 1,999 total deaths:
687 : 496 = 1.38 Increase in deaths WITH COVID-19 = +38%
1,312 : 496 = 2.64 Increase in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 = +164%

Thus, even where there was a significant excess mortality (but only for a limited period, offset by reductions in previous and subsequent months), this seems due to other causes besides COVID-19.

Let’s look at another ISTAT data screen:

We see Turin, with 403 deaths WITH COVID out of 3,469 deaths:
403 : 2,803 = 0.14 Ratio of deaths WITH COVID-19 = -6%
3,066 : 2,803 = 1.09 Increase in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 = +9%

Here, 2020 COVID-19 deaths are even 86% lower than in the previous five-year period; while the ratio between deaths FROM COVID-19 and deaths from other mysterious causes is no longer 1:2 as before, but fully 1:10!

I think the point is now more than clear. To conclude, returning to my homeland, the province of Pesaro-Urbino.

In Pesaro-Urbino province, out of 912 deaths (double the previous years’ average of 454), only 157 are WITH COVID-19:

157 : 454 = 0.34 Ratio of deaths WITH COVID-19 = -66%
755 : 454 = 1.66 Increase in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 = +66%

In Pesaro-Urbino, if it had been only COVID-19, there would have been a 66% reduction in deaths; and it is only due to the +66% in deaths NOT WITH COVID-19 (755 deaths) that there is a doubling of total deaths. While the ratio between ex-COVID-19 deaths and other deaths is 1:5!

And as final and definitive proof of the non-existence of the pandemic, I return to my city of Urbino, included in the high-diffusion pandemic zone, as Pesaro-Urbino province is the only Central one added to the 37 high-mortality Northern ones. Well, do you know what the death ratio was in Urbino in 2020 compared to 2019?

Deaths first quarter (January 1–April 4):
2020 - 58
2019 - 70
That is, there was a significant reduction in the number of deaths.

RESPONSES TO SOME OBJECTIONS
Despite thousands of shares of this text of mine, there have been only a few objections, all relatively marginal, apart from a couple of small but useful corrections on a couple of minor numerical errors (which have been corrected in this version). I discuss the three main ones here:

a) “But we must evaluate the impact of the lockdown in reducing the number of deaths”: in reality, the lockdown started on March 11, 2020, i.e., already 21 days after the start of the period considered (February 20, 2020). Moreover, according to the dominant narrative, the virus has an incubation period of 14 days, so lockdown effects would not have been seen before two weeks from its start, i.e., not before March 25, almost at the end of the period considered by ISTAT (February 20–March 31, 2020). Thus, the first cases of virus presence in Italy were reported around February 6, 2020, and deaths start on February 20. Similarly, in the two weeks after the lockdown start, there would still have been deaths from infections up to March 10, 2020. In other words, if the lockdown had an impact (which is doubtful, since there was no mortality difference between Italy and countries that did not lockdown), it would have affected only 5-6 days out of 41, i.e., at most 12%, a percentage very likely more than offset by increased deaths due to lockdown (suicides, violence, and domestic accidents).

b) “But all the doctors who died from COVID-19?”
The issue of frontline doctors’ deaths is in fact one of the basic themes of the epidemiological narrative: without an abundant mortality of frontline doctors against the pandemic, what kind of pandemic would it be? And indeed, the WHO and media narrative has always emphasized the deaths of “infected” doctors. People accept this data as incontrovertible truth, as if until the coronavirus doctors didn’t die, as if they were immortal... I always say to look at the real numbers: in Italy, as of March 2020, there are 403,454 doctors registered with the order; this number represents 6.7/1,000 of the population, i.e., 6.7 doctors per thousand inhabitants.

Now, in Italy about 650,000 people die each year, from all social classes, and it is normal to expect that for every 1,000 of those deaths, 6 are doctors (we round down, maybe not all practice, although with the coronavirus emergency many were called back to service). This leads to about 3,900 doctors dying each year... That is, on average 3,900 doctors die in Italy every year, 325 per month... and you tell me that 94 or even 150 doctors dead “with” coronavirus is an emergency? If there had been 1,500 in a month, then yes there would have been something strange; instead here too it’s just media hype... Not to mention that most of these dead doctors were often retired and very advanced in age. The President of the Order of Doctors, in an interview where he was challenged that the list of deaths published on their site included all types of deaths and not only those from COVID-19, replied that in fact they just wanted to honor all their dead, and not only those from COVID-19. Yeah, right...

c) Finally, a statistical objection that gave me some headache: “But the 2020 data refer only to 86% of the population, while those from previous years [are for] 100%!” It seemed a sensible objection, so I looked into it, discovering why ISTAT reports data only for 86% of the 2020 population.

At the end of its report, ISTAT clarifies why it gave numbers relating only to 6,866 municipalities, equal to 87% of the total 7,904 Italian municipalities, and equal to 86% of the Italian population. The 1,038 missing municipalities were excluded not because there was no data, but because in those municipalities mortality in the 2020 period had decreased significantly compared to previous years! ISTAT writes:

Thus ISTAT eliminated all municipalities where there had been a significant reduction in mortality, on the pretext that they must be incomplete! That is, if they are not as we say, the data must be wrong! Therefore, the data calculated on 86% of the population are much more favorable to the hypothesis of a mortality increase in the 2020 period than the truth would be if all Italian municipalities had been included. From this point of view, my analysis of the ISTAT report is actually even too “kind,” and thus the substance of my argument remains confirmed.

Mills Baker, Substack’s head of design, said this recently on Notes:

“When users see more posts they ‘like,’ they tend to come back, go deeper, and pay for more Substacks—so the model also selects for posts people like, even if we don’t tell it to.”1

Funny how that landed right when I noticed something strange.

My friend used to be huge on X—tons of views, shares, and likes—mostly posting summaries and videos from the Scottish Inquiry. Then, out of nowhere, banned in 2024. No reason given.2 Now he’s here on Substack, still posting great stuff.

Yesterday he replied to my comment on his post about John Campbell’s latest Gain of Function / Nipah virus video3:

“John’s vid (which, let’s be honest, is very basic) is now approaching 1 MILLION views. The power of the algorithm.”4

Here’s the weird part: when I tried to “like” his reply, I couldn’t. Got an error message instead.

Then I see Mills talking about how the algorithm reacts to what people like—and I’m sitting there, unable to “like” this one specific reply.

Today it works again.

Coincidence? Maybe. But I can’t help wondering… would that “glitch” have been fixed if I hadn’t called attention to it?

I even asked Mills about it:

“Is there some reason why I’m not allowed to like a reply that my friend made to me?”

He didn’t reply. Maybe because he knows it’s all fake—that “glitches” are placed purposefully, and that bots are secretly allowed, because we can’t just let the “algorithm” do its own thing. That might be dangerous, no?

Here’s a screenshot of John Campbell’s video stats—it’s blowing up compared to his other recent ones. Almost ten times more views. Is that real? I don’t buy it!

Maybe the secret is to post about Gain of Function and scary viruses, so the bots boost your posts. Then, who knows—maybe more paid subs roll in too.

2

Biologyphenom

Suspended from X/Twitter 2024

You shall not pass…

Read more

2 years ago · 68 likes · 67 comments · biologyphenom

3

Biologyphenom

'Dr' John Campbell-The Next Pandemic

Introduction…

Read more

3 months ago · 57 likes · 59 comments · biologyphenom