The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Topics Filter?
2016 Election Academia Affirmative Action American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Vaxx Asian Quotas Bilingual Education Bioweapons Campaign Finance Censorship China China/America Conspiracy Theories Coronavirus Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Harvard Hispanic Crime History Hitler Humor Ideology Immigration IQ Israel Israel Lobby Jeffrey Sachs Jews JFK Assassination McCain/POW Meritocracy Middle East Minimum Wage Political Correctness Race/Crime Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Reprint Russia Science Ukraine Vaccines Video Type Vioxx Web Traffic World War II 2008 Election 2012 Election 2018 Election 2020 Election 2022 Election 9/11 Abortion ADL Adolf Hitler Alt Right Amazon Anne Frank Anthony Fauci Anthrax Anthropology Anti-Semitism Antiracism Arts/Letters Asian Americans Asians Belgrade Embassy Bombing Bill Clinton Black Crime Black Lives Matter Black Muslims Blacks Bolshevik Revolution Britain Bush Administration California California Senate Race Chernobyl Chinese Evolution Chinese Language CIA Classical History Cold War Conservative Movement Cover Story Crime Culture/Society David Bazelon David Irving Deep State Democratic Party Deregulation Disease Elon Musk Energy Evolution Evolutionary Biology Facebook Floyd Riots 2020 France Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians George Patton German Language Germany Glenn Greenwald Global Warming Google Gun Control H-1B Hillary Clinton Hispanics HIV/AIDS Hollywood Holocaust Illegal Immigration Incest Iosef Stalin Iosif Stalin Iran Iraq War Israel/Palestine Ivy League James Forrestal Japan Jeffrey Epstein Joe Biden John F. Kennedy John McCain Judaism Judicial System Julian Assange Kaiser Wilhelm Kanye West Kkk Korean War Latinos long-range-missile-defense Lyndon Johnson Mafia Malaysian Airlines MH17 Medicine Mitt Romney Mossad Nation Of Islam National Debt National Review NATO Nazi Germany Nazism Neocons Neoliberalism New York New York Times Nicholas Wade Nord Stream Pipelines Nuclear War Obesity Oklahoma City Bombing OpenThread Opioids Pearl Harbor Phil Rushton Pizzagate Polio Poverty Public Health Public Schools Race And Genomics Racism Republican Party Republicans Revisionism RFK Assassination Richard Nixon Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Robert Trivers Ron Paul Ronald Reagan Sacklers Sheldon Adelson Silicon Valley Slavoj Zizek Social Media Sociobiology South Africa Soviet Union Spanish Language Sri Lanka Stephen Cohen Stephen Jay Gould Supreme Court Terrorism The American Conservative The Economist Theoretical Physics Trade Tucker Carlson Tuition TWA 800 Twitter University Admissions USS Liberty Vdare Vietnam Vietnam War Vince Foster Vladimir Putin Vote Fraud Vouchers Wall Street Walmart War Crimes White America White Nationalism White Nationalists Winston Churchill Woodrow Wilson World War I World War III YouTube Zionism
Nothing found
 TeasersRon Unz Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter

I’ve recently published several articles arguing that the national and international mortality statistics indicate that the widespread fears promoted by leading Covid anti-vaxxers seemed wildly exaggerated. Contrary to their claims, the data seemed to show little if any evidence that the mRNA vaccines had been responsible for any significant number of working-age deaths. Instead, most of the excess mortality across different countries was much more closely associated with health factors such as the national obesity rate.

I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction to my articles from the more moderate and rational vaccine-skeptics. Podcaster Kevin Barrett suggested that I’d made a pretty strong case and a couple of Substack writers reacted rather favorably, while other individuals in that camp such as prominent libertarians Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods Tweeted out my pieces to their followers:

Age is the overwhelming factor determining the severity of Covid infections, with individuals over 60 having perhaps 100x the death rate of those under 40. Different countries often have sharply different age distributions and their mortality totals would be drastically influenced by this. Therefore, I sought to minimize this distortion by restricting my analysis to the 15-64 working-age population.


Also, since Covid death rates are relatively low in that age range, this allowed me to detect the possible “signal” of vaxxing deaths without having these swamped by Covid deaths. I concluded that working-age deaths due to Covid vaccinations had probably been negligible.

Many anti-vaxxers have claimed that there was an ongoing epidemic of vaxxing deaths in this age range and books published on this subject such as “Cause Unknown” by Edward Dowd have attracted considerable attention. So my analysis directly refuted those widespread beliefs within the anti-vaxxer community.

However, some other prominent anti-vaxxers have taken a different position, with Alex Berenson focusing on elderly deaths due to vaxxing. He argued that by ignoring that age range my analysis was severely flawed.

Similarly, Steve Kirsch had contacted me just before my third article was released and we had spent an hour discussing my findings. He seemed very surprised by my mortality statistics both for the US and other countries, and said he would carefully digest the data and then consider producing a detailed response to my analysis. He hasn’t yet done so, but the day after my article appeared, a couple of his Tweets emphasized that the elderly were actually the greatest victims of vaxxing.

These sorts of objections seemed perfectly valid. Major Covid outbreaks have often produced high mortality rates for the elderly, and this obviously makes it difficult to determine how many of the subsequent fatalities should be attributed to the lingering consequences of Covid infections and how many to the side-effects of the accompanying vaccination drives.

This is especially true with regard to cardiovascular problems such as fatal heart attacks and strokes since research studies have pointed to both Covid infections and mRNA vaccinations as possible culprits. The large rise in such American fatalities came in 2020, before the vaxxing began, but an unknown fraction of the later deaths in 2021 and 2022 might have actually been due to the vaccines.


Although it seems unlikely that any significant number of working-age deaths have been due to vaxxing, the overwhelming majority of excess mortality over the last three years has been concentrated among the elderly, and it would be helpful to get some sense of whether or not the vaccines have played a substantial negative role in that global calamity.

Complex and confusing datasets are sometime best explored by focusing on extreme cases. Japan’s age distribution is an considerable outlier among major countries, with an unusually large fraction of its population being elderly. According to the World Bank, a full 30% of all Japanese are 65 or older, compared to just 24% in second-ranking Italy or 17% in the US or South Korea. So despite Japan’s lack of obesity, we might expect it to have had one of the world’s highest excess mortality rates over the last three years.

I came across a recent article suggesting that a huge wave of recent Japanese deaths had probably been caused by the country’s exceptionally heavy mRNA vaccination program.

That article had emphasized that Japan’s Covid vaccination campaign was one of the heaviest in the world, with its elderly population being “vaxxed-to-the-max” and this was hardly an exaggeration. According to one of the charts, the total per capita rate of Covid vaccine injections was nearly twice that of the very heavily vaxxed European countries, with the ratio being much higher compared to the relatively unvaxxed United States:

Thus, Japan seems an ideal test case for the hypothesis that Covid mRNA vaxxing is a deadly threat to the elderly: the country with the highest fraction of elderly also seems to have the world’s most extreme Covid vaxxing program.

• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Anti-Vaxx, Conspiracy Theories, Polio, Vaccines 

Covid and the Rise of the Anti-Vaxxing Movement

Until the last year or two, I’d never paid any attention to the anti-vaxxing movement, which very occasionally received some coverage in my newspapers. It seemed to mostly consist of a small slice of agitated women from affluent suburbs, morbidly fearful that the standard series of childhood vaccinations would injure their infants, perhaps producing autism or other serious disabilities. I regarded them almost as an eccentric cult that I mentally filed away with Scientologists or UFO adherents.

That all changed in 2020 as the massive Covid epidemic led the Trump Administration to propose an equally massive roll-out of mRNA vaccines, which were rushed into release without undergoing the usual years of careful clinical trials. Given the new technology employed—which effectively hijacked the body’s own cellular machinery into producing portions of the Covid spike-protein—and the lack of testing, it’s hardly surprising that many individuals were fearful of such injections. Indeed, there were plausible claims that the heavy media campaign against alternative Covid treatments relying upon HCQ and IVM had actually been orchestrated, intended to ensure that the lack of effective alternative drugs would allow the government to use its emergency powers to deploy the Covid vaccines without the lengthy normal testing process. This government-sponsored vaccination project had raised the market value of the large vaccine manufacturers by hundreds of billions of dollars, provoking the reasonable suspicions of cynical observers.

So by 2021 our website was flooded by waves of militant anti-vaxxers, while many of our existing writers and commenters also latched onto that same issue, sometimes to the near-exclusion of most others, a situation that greatly irritated me. Their wild outcries warned that the mRNA vaccines would kill millionsor even billions—perhaps as part of a diabolical globalist plot by Bill Gates to depopulate the earth. All of this seemed like stark, raving lunacy to me, and I regularly said so, incurring their ferocious outrage.

I felt that their basic concern about the widespread use of a relatively untested medical technology might have possible merit. But on balance, the risks appeared smaller than the dangerous Covid epidemic it was intended to mitigate, at least according to an overwhelming large majority of medical professionals. Given my lack of personal expertise, that was the most I could say. So I got my shots, stopped paying any attention to the issue, and hoped for the best.

Fortunately, two years of statistical data now seems to indicate that the medical establishment had mostly been correct and its fervent critics mistaken, and in several recent articles I’d shown that across numerous countries, the number of non-elderly vaccine deaths seems almost invisibly low, too small to be noticeable in the mortality statistics. Anti-vaxxers frequently claim that the vaccines are responsible for a large wave of sudden deaths among youthful individuals and athletes; but the evidence suggests that these are much more likely due to the lingering consequences of Covid infections rather than the vaccines intended to combat the virus, as I’ve discussed in several recent articles:

It’s certainly not impossible that the long-term consequences of mRNA injections might be harmful, but at least so far there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of this, which is the most we can expect at this stage.

The Surprising Flaws in Vaccine Safety Testing

To a huge extent, concerns about mRNA-based Covid vaccines have come to define today’s anti-vaxxing movement, so much so that they seem to be the main focus of perhaps 95% or 98% of all the angry anti-vaxxers I’ve encountered over the last couple of years. Indeed, many of these activists have explicitly said that they’d feel fairly comfortable with the more traditional Covid vaccines released by Russia and various other countries. Although I’m sure that most of the original anti-vaxxers of 2019 are still around, they seem to have been reduced to a tiny minority in the movement that they once pioneered.


However, those earlier vaxxing concerns still have a presence here and there, and a few months ago I received a book on exactly that broader subject, published under the auspices of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense organization. It had originally been released in 2019, long before anyone had ever heard of Covid or Wuhan, so it had nothing to do with this current issues, but addressed the previous vaccine controversy. The authors were anonymous—supposedly a couple of Israeli medical doctors—and their work had originally been published in their own country, but had now been released in an English-language American edition. Except for a few simple charts, the contents consisted entirely of text, and the title was a puzzling one: Turtles All the Way Down. But the explanatory subtitle of “Vaccine Science and Myth” alerted me to the topic, and given my lack of interest in the vaxxing issue, I put it on the shelf, never intending to read it. After all, since I’d concluded that the radically new mRNA Covid vaccines probably seemed harmless, how likely was it that the traditional ones that had been used for so many decades were actually dangerous?

However, in early October I happened to listen to Kevin Barrett’s interview with Zoey O’Toole, one of the editors of the American edition of Turtles. To my considerable surprise, she came across as quite rational and persuasive, making all sorts of very reasonable points, and raising important issues that I’d never previously considered, so I dug out the book and decided to spend a couple of days reading it.

I was really quite impressed. Most of the Covid anti-vaxxers I’d encountered on the Internet were prone to making wild, very doubtful charges involving gigantic body-counts but I encountered very little of such grandiosity in this extremely sober 500 page discussion of the subject.


I’m very pleased to report that Will Jones, the editor of Britain’s Daily Sceptic webzine, has now published another important new article on the origins of the global Covid epidemic, declaring that the lab-leak theory so widely accepted across alternative media circles for the last three years “is almost certainly false.”

Webzine founder Toby Young Tweeted out the piece to his 250,000 followers, and it was also immediately republished by America’s Brownstone Institute.

The Daily Sceptic and the Brownstone Institute are two of the leading alt-Covid publications of the Anglosphere, and this latest article followed four others that they had previously cross-published related to the same origins question. Those had also prompted Brian Mowrey, an alt-Covid writer on Substack, to provide his own overview of all of this material.

A half-dozen substantial articles released within just a few weeks is certainly a significant trend. Last week I had already discussed the tremendous potential importance of this ongoing development, noting that leading alt-media publications and public figures have now joined this renewed effort to finally uncover the origins of the Covid epidemic that took so many millions of lives worldwide.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University is an academic of the highest mainstream respectability who had spent the last two years as chairman of the Lancet‘s Covid Commission. Then a few months ago, he received international attention when he publicly sugggested that the virus was very likely bioengineered and called for an end to what he condemned as an ongoing governmental attempt to cover-up its true origins.

His October podcast interview on Max Blumenthal’s Grayzone is now approaching 400,000 views, already the second most popular video ever shown on that channel.

Individuals such as Prof. Sachs possess enormous international credibility. Meanwhile, alternative outlets such as the Daily Sceptic, the Brownstone Institute, and the Grayzone provide a growing media reach, both directly and through the independent journalists and writers whom they influence. Taken together, this potent combination might successfully challenge the powerful cover-up that has been maintained for the last three years by the American government and its subservient MSM allies.

These media developments represent a crucial addition to my own writings on this same subject.

This new material has also sparked renewed interest in my own Covid analysis, with my podcast interviews from last February already approaching a half-million views on Rumble this month, and likely to reach a total of 3 million within the next few days.

Kevin Barrett, FFWN • February 16, 2022 • 15m

Video Link

Geopolitics & Empire • February 1, 2022 • 75m

Video Link

Red Ice TV • February 3, 2022 • 130m

Video Link.


Many have declared that our alternative webzine features some of the most controversial content published anywhere on the Internet, notably including the explosive articles in my own lengthy American Pravda series.

Meanwhile, the global Covid epidemic has been the dominant issue of the last three years, generating more controversy than any other topic, at least prior to the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war.

Yet oddly enough, with one crucial exception—the origins of the virus—my own Covid views have been remarkably mainstream and humdrum, not too far from what I’ve seen in the pages of the New York Times and the Economist. This situation had naturally provoked outrage in many of our regular readers, who had often had been drawn to our website because they automatically rejected everything that the mainstream media promoted.

The conflict was especially severe with regard to the vaxxing controversy, and I’d guess that 95% of our readers vocal on the subject were anti-vaxxers, often extremely fervent ones. Nearly all of our regular writers and columnists who focused on that topic also fell into that same category, including Mike Whitney, Paul Craig Roberts, Linh Dinh, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, C.J. Hopkins, and several other contributors. But during my decades of political activism, I’ve frequently been in a small minority, sometimes standing almost alone on an important position, so I wasn’t particularly disturbed when this happened yet again in the pages of my own webzine, especially since I wasn’t particularly interested in the vaxxing issue.

Various other alt-writers or activists privately told me that they actually shared my views, but were very reluctant to say so lest they be swarmed and vilified by a horde of militant anti-vaxxers or even risk burning bridges with longtime friends and allies. Steve Sailer, our leading blogger, maintained his strongly pro-vaxx position, but only very rarely raised the issue since whenever he did so he would always be blasted by many of his own commenters. Vaxxing had become an ultra-touchy subject.

Refusing to conceal my views, in mid-2021 I published a long critique of the anti-vaxxing case, and every six months or so followed it up with another one. These functioned as powerful lightning rods, drawing vast waves of attacks by agitated anti-vaxxers, which eventually totaled close to 10,000 comments and perhaps a couple of million words. Indeed, some anti-vaxxers claimed that our lightly-moderated website had soon accumulated the largest body of anti-vaxxing content found anywhere on the Internet, thereby attracting anti-vaxxers from far and wide who sought detailed support for their views.

But all the mounting statistical evidence seemed to confirm my original skepticism, and each of my articles was somewhat more firm in drawing those conclusions than the preceding one.

That last article had noted that although anti-vaxxers argued that a huge wave of fatal heart attacks and strokes had been due to the mRNA vaccines, the American mortality statistics demonstrated that almost the entire rise had occurred during 2020 before the vaxxing began.

I summarized my findings in a few simple points:

  1. Vaxxing only began on December 14, 2020, so it would have had almost no public health impact during that year.
  2. Except for homicides and accidents, nearly all the major changes in American death rates occurred in 2020, so these must have been due to Covid.
  3. Except for homicides and accidents, non-Covid death rates showed almost no change in 2021 and 2022, so the vaccines probably had no impact one way or the other.


The Daily Sceptic is a leading alt-Covid website based in Britain, sharply critical of establishmentarian positions on Covid issues including vaxxing, and in late December I began corresponding with its editor Will Jones in connection with an excellent article he had published on Covid origin issues.

At one point, I happened to mention some New Zealand mortality statistics I’d seen somewhere, and he corrected them, directing me to the Human Mortality Database website, whose numbers he considered authoritative. Although the HMD had been launched in June 2020, I hadn’t previously heard of it and I immediately recognized it as an extremely useful source for such crucial information from dozens of mostly Western countries, conveniently aggregating, stratifying, and displaying official data that would otherwise remain buried on governmental websites. Given its apparent affiliation with both UC Berkeley and the Max Planck Institute plus its recommendation by the Daily Sceptic, I decided I could treat its numbers as quite reliable.

A excellent longtime commenter from Iceland calling himself “Niceland” had said he’d seen no indications of any significant numbers of vaxxing deaths in the mortality statistics of his own small, tightly-knit island republic, nor in those of a couple of other European countries whose data he’d tracked down. This made me curious about the broader international pattern, and the HMD website now gave me easy access to all of these statistics from a large number of countries, so I decided to investigate the issue more carefully.

From the beginning, alt-Covid activists have reasonably argued that cause of death is a somewhat ambiguous verdict, easily subject to official manipulation, and that considerable numbers of deaths might have been misattributed to Covid. Thus, they often point to total mortality rates as a much more solid metric to use, with these being the most reliable statistics for any country, especially the developed nations covered by the HMD website.


Although much of my research and writing over the last three years has been devoted to the global Covid epidemic, I’ve paradoxically paid very little attention to most of the various Covid-oriented websites.

That’s because I have narrowly concentrated on the origins of the epidemic while they have focused almost entirely upon the details of the disease and the controversial public health measures adopted to control it. I’ve had only slight interest in those latter topics, and partly for that reason most of my views have been vaguely mainstream, not too different from what I have regularly read in the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Economist.

However, the daily lives of billions of individuals around the world have been tremendously disrupted by these government-imposed policies, which included lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, mandates that were often tremendously unpopular and had enormous social and economic consequences. Moreover, faced with a life-and-death situation, substantial portions of the public together with some medical professionals claimed that various treatments for Covid such as the use of HCQ and IVM were safe and effective but wrongly suppressed, a position loudly attacked and denounced by the outraged medical and media establishments. These battles grew even fiercer once a massive Covid vaccination drive began at the end of 2020, with critics noting that the mRNA vaccines being employed were based upon an entirely new biotechnology and had required the use of emergency waivers to circumvent what would have otherwise been a long and cautious clinical trial process.

During this entire period, the establishment media provided nearly lockstep support to the governmental positions on all of these hugely controversial issues, and this naturally fostered the growth of what might be called the alt-Covid community, a network of websites, bloggers, and podcasters who argued that many of these official policies were completely incorrect, often based more upon propaganda than science.

One of the more prominent nodes in this dissenting ecosystem was founded in April 2020 by Toby Young, a longtime British journalist and public intellectual, conservative-leaning but generally well-regarded. He launched Lockdown Sceptics, an Internet newsletter critiquing what he considered an ill-conceived public health measure as well as other Covid-related issues. Over time, he gradually expanded and extended its coverage, also taking on board Will Jones and Noah Carl, a couple of younger Ph.D.’s, with the former eventually serving as editor. By the time the British lockdowns finally ended in July 2021, his readership and impact had expanded to the point that he decided to rechristen his publication the Daily Sceptic and keep it in operation, providing careful analysis of other public policy issues, especially those avoided or mishandled by the mainstream media, though still with a strong emphasis on Covid-related matters.

Although I might not necessarily agree with all of his webzine’s conclusions, the articles that they run seem very sober and carefully reasoned, often based upon published scientific papers or quantitative analysis, a welcome change from the wild speculation and fear-mongering found on these subjects across much of the Internet. My impression is that the website has become quite influential within alt-Covid circles, while also being taken seriously by many mainstream journalists and scientists. According to SimilarWeb, its traffic has been growing rapidly, recently reaching over 7 million pageviews and 200,000 hours of readership per month, totals that are several times larger than those of Quillette, where Young had once served as Associate Editor, and substantially greater than our own.


Despite its growing visibility, the website’s subject matter and British focus meant that I’d been only slightly aware it until a few weeks ago when someone brought to my attention one of its articles that had been republished on Alex Jones’ conspiratorial InfoWars website, hugely popular but hardly reliable.

To my considerable surprise, the very solidly argued 3,200 word piece by Daily Sceptic Editor Will Jones directly addressed one of the absolutely critical questions that had been scrupulously avoided for nearly three years by our entire mainstream media, an issue that podcaster Kevin Barrett had appropriately dubbed the “Smoking Gun” of the Covid epidemic.

The opening paragraph asked an obvious question.

Here’s something that’s been bugging me. How did U.S. intelligence analysts pick up on what they deemed a dangerous novel virus in China at a time when there’s no good evidence China had picked up on it or was concerned? How did they spot the signal in all the noise of a normal Chinese flu season?

After carefully analyzing all of the fragmentary and somewhat contradictory evidence, the piece closed by very courageously presenting an explosive possible answer, highlighted with a telling quote from Dr. Robert Kadlec, a senior Trump Administration official and longstanding biowarfare advocate.

There is, it should be noted, one straightforward way to explain all of this, but it’s implications are disturbing to say the least. It is that the virus was deliberately released in China by some group or groups within the U.S. intelligence and security services. The purpose of such a release would be partly to disrupt China and partly as a live exercise for pandemic preparedness – which is, as we know, how the pandemic was in practice treated by those in the U.S. biodefence network. While shocking, this is not outside the bounds of possibility. Consider what Robert Kadlec wrote in a Pentagon strategy paper in 1998.

Using biological weapons under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial. Biological warfare’s potential to create significant economic loss and subsequent political instability, coupled with plausible denial, exceeds the possibilities of any other human weapon.

If this were the case, it may be that the addition of the furin cleavage site to the virus would be to enhance its infectiousness in order to increase the chance of a pandemic occurring (perhaps they’d tried before with a less infectious virus and it hadn’t worked so well). The virus would be deliberately relatively mild so it didn’t do too much harm, but severe enough to have the desired impact – at least when assisted with psyops and propaganda. Very few individuals would likely know the origin – most would be part of the live exercise.


MW Question 1– Thanks for taking time for this interview, but I want to be upfront with you: I’m going to challenge your views on the vaccine by pointing out what-I-think are the glaring flaws in your logic.

In your latest article Obesity and the End of the Vaxxing Debate, you disparage the group you call “anti-vaxxers” while—at the same time—you defend the very ideas that form the cornerstone of their beliefs. Let me explain. You openly admit that there is some basis to anti-vaxxer “fears of the Covid vaccines”. You also acknowledge that “The vaccines” use “an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences.” Following these admissions, you quickly move on to your own assumption “that the risks of the Covid vaccine were considerably lower than the risks of serious Covid illness.”

That’s fine; you made your own decision based on your grasp of the information available. But, here’s the thing: Your analysis actually supports the anti-vaxxer position. You have actually made our case for us.

When you admit that these injections are an entirely new and insufficiently tested technology that “hijacks” the “body’s own cellular machinery” forcing it to produce the spike protein”; you are, in fact, adopting the core position of the anti-vaxx movement. This is it. This is what we oppose. Do you see that?

And, what you are saying (surprisingly) is that that point of view “hardly seem unreasonable”. In other words, you accept that the central tenets of the anti-vax movement are reasonable. But that’s not all you say. You go on to say in the next paragraph: “the vaccines were rushed into production and release, circumventing the long process of clinical trials that would otherwise have been required.”

This is another stunning admission. Once again, you are making the anti-vax case and then (only later) quibbling about issues that are clearly debatable among reasonably well-informed people. But on the central issues; you are admitting that anti-vaxx views are reasonable.

One gets the feeling that your issue with the antivaxx people has less to do with their core beliefs than it does with the fact that we tend to be resolutely inflexible in our views, a point that I would agree with 100%.

So here’s my question to you: Do you think your article is consistently pro-vaxx or can you see where readers might think you are sending a mixed-message?


Ron Unz: Sure, I started my article by deliberately emphasizing that many of the fundamental concerns of the anti-vaxxers seemed perfectly reasonable to me, namely that a radical new medical technology rushed into widespread release without extensive testing might be a very dangerous thing.

That’s why I wouldn’t really say that I necessarily “disparage” all the anti-vaxxers in my article. However, I do think that the evidence that has come out over the last couple of years indicates that they were probably wrong and that their fears proved to be greatly exaggerated.

Meanwhile, some of the more extreme anti-vaxxers are still claiming that millions or even many hundreds of millions of people will soon be dead from vaxxing. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for such wild claims and I think that the apparent refusal of more moderate anti-vaxxers to publicly criticize such doubtful “allies” seriously damages their own credibility.

For example, some commenter on my article cited a certain anti-vaxxer calling herself “Prof. Dolores Cahill, Ph.D” who flatly stated:

“Everyone who has had an mRNA injection dies within 3 to 5 years, even if they’ve only had one injection!”

I suppose what she’s claiming is possible, but I tend to doubt it, so I’d certainly “disparage” someone like that.


MW Question 2– I want to go back to an observation you made in the beginning of your article. You said: “The vaccines” use “an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences.”

This is really the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Unfortunately, the point has been so belabored that most people are just tired of talking about it. But it’s an important point, all the same, so let me see if I can frame it a little differently. Let’s say you have a head cold that is getting worse. So, you go to the doctor to get a perscription. But—to your surprise—the doctor tells you:

“I don’t have any medicine that will make you better, but I do have a pill that will rewire your immune system so it produces the medication you need to improve.”

So—all of a sudden—you are given the option of returning home with no medicine at all or taking an experimental chemical that will (in your words) hijack “the body’s own cellular machinery… to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein.”

Explain to me how this is different than the decision we were all asked to make when the combined medical, state and media establishments all decided that everyone needed to get jabbed with their experimental injection?


Ron Unz: Sure, there are obvious dangers in using a new medical technology such as mRNA vaccines.

In fact, the government of China has refused to approve the general use of mRNA vaccines for exactly those sorts of reasons. Western media outlets claim that mRNA vaccines are more effective against Covid than the traditional vaccines China is using, but the Chinese government is taking a very cautious approach and I certainly can’t blame them.

There’s another important related point I didn’t bother including in this article, but I’ve mentioned in some previous ones. I thought there were some very suspicious aspects to the massive establishment media campaigns against using HCQ and IVM as possible Covid treatments. Whether those compounds are effective or not I can’t really say, but the immediate, coordinated attacks against them raised all sorts of dark suspicions in my mind.

Under normal circumstances, the Covid vaccines would have needed to undergo lengthy clinical trials before they were approved for widespread use, but those requirements were waived under the emergency provisions that no other possible medical treatments existed. So HCQ and IVM had to be declared worthless and banned for Covid use in order to allow the controversial vaxxing campaign to go forward without testing. Maybe the medical criticism was warranted, but a cynical observer would naturally have some doubts.

The problem is that everything in life has risks and we must weigh them against each other. I don’t have any medical expertise and it seemed clear that Covid was a dangerous illness, while there was also considerable uncertainly about the mRNA vaccines, so I waited a few months to see if any major problems developed. By early June 2021, the AMA reported that roughly 96% of all the medical doctors they polled had already been fully vaxxed. Since doctors know more about balancing those risks than I do, a few weeks later I went ahead and got myself vaccinated.


Over the last couple of years, our alternative media website has been flooded by a vast number of zealous anti-vaxxers, promoting their fears of the Covid vaccines with tremendous energy and commitment.

On its face, such concerns with the Covid vaccination drive hardly seem unreasonable. The vaccines used in most Western countries have been based upon an entirely new mRNA technology, in which the body’s own cellular machinery is actually hijacked to produce portions of the Covid spike-protein, and new medical innovations sometimes have negative consequences. The lockdowns originally implemented to control the Covid epidemic proved highly unpopular and increasingly unworkable, so the vaccines were rushed into production and release, circumventing the long process of clinical trials that would otherwise have been required.

It’s hardly surprising that many people would be unnerved by the widespread use of a radical new medical technology introduced without sufficient testing.

But I don’t have any background in medicine or microbiology, and it seemed that the overwhelming majority of medical professionals believed that the risks of the Covid vaccine were considerably lower than the risks of serious Covid illness. So after waiting a few months, I got myself vaccinated in mid-2021. Neither I nor anyone I knew had any ill effects from the shots, and I soon stopped paying much attention to the issue.

Meanwhile, the alarms raised by some of the louder anti-vaxxers became more and more extreme, sometimes predicting that the vaccinations would kill millions or even many hundreds of millions. Quite a lot of the anti-vaxxers on this lightly moderated website also began cluttering up unrelated articles with their fervent anti-vaxxing comments, which greatly irritated me.

Although I wasn’t much interested in the issue, I decided that the anti-vaxxers sounded like a bunch of total crack-pots and said so in an interview, immediately provoking an avalanche of overwhelmingly hostile responses, which eventually totaled more than 850,000 words.

Since then, every six months or so, I’ve published another column on the vaxxing controversy, pointing to the increasingly strong indications that anti-vaxxing concerns had been hugely exaggerated and there was very little evidence the vaccines were causing any significant numbers of deaths. Each time, my remarks have aroused another huge wave of extremely angry responses from militant anti-vaxxers:

In my latest article published last week, I noted that most anti-vaxxers have claimed that Covid vaccinations had produced a large wave of fatal heart attacks and strokes. However, although American deaths from those causes have indeed risen quite substantially from 2019, nearly all of that increase occurred in 2020, before the Covid vaccination drive began, while the numbers remained almost unchanged in 2021 and 2022. This suggested that the rise was caused by the Covid infections of 2020 rather than the vaccines later deployed to control them, and scientific studies have already demonstrated that even mild Covid infections lead to a greatly increased future risk of heart attacks and strokes. And if the massive amount of vaxxing and boosting that began early in 2021 had almost no impact upon such mortality totals, it seemed unlikely that they have been causing very many deaths.

I had summarized my findings in a few simple points:

  1. Vaxxing only began on December 14, 2020, so it would have had almost no public health impact during that year.
  2. Except for homicides and accidents, nearly all the major changes in American death rates occurred in 2020, so these must have been due to Covid.
  3. Except for homicides and accidents, non-Covid death rates showed almost no change in 2021 and 2022, so the vaccines probably had no impact one way or the other.


After publishing that piece, I had planned to once again set aside the topic for another half-year or so, then review six additional months of data that I expected would further strengthen my original conclusions. However, some additional information was soon brought to my attention that seemed to finally settle the vaxxing controversy once and for all.

First, a very level-headed commenter from Iceland calling himself “Niceland” noted that except for the elderly, his own country’s population had experienced no noticeable increase in deaths during the last couple of years, despite the very heavy vaxxing regime it had followed. He then checked, and discovered that the same was true of Denmark and a couple of other nearby European countries. Since the overwhelming majority of the populations were vaxxed, and those younger than about 65 showed no significant excess mortality, it seemed unlikely that vaxxing had caused any substantial number of deaths.

Around the same time, someone else brought to my attention a very useful website affiliated with UC Berkeley and the Max Planck Institute that provides a very easy means of displaying decades of excess mortality statistics for dozens of countries. These mortality results presented can be stratified by gender and various age-groups, and the reference years used to calculate the “excess” can also be selected.

So I decided to repeat Niceland’s analysis for all the countries available. I focused upon total deaths for working-age individuals age 15-64, used the average mortality rates for the years 2015-2019 as the reference, and examined the totals for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022.


Until the last couple of years, I doubt whether I’d ever spent even ten minutes thinking about vaccination issues, and probably a large majority of ordinary Americans fell into the same category. I’d had a few rounds of shots as a young child, supplemented by boosters every ten or fifteen years and an annual flu shot. I had no idea whether any of them worked, but except for having a sore arm for a day or so, none of them had produced any ill effects for me, nor for anyone I knew.

Everything changed in 2020, as the sudden Covid epidemic led our government to heavily promote a massive vaccination drive based upon a new mRNA technology. This quickly caused the once-obscure anti-vaxxing movement to grow enormously in size and visibility, suddenly moving to the center of political life. For a period of a year or more, the less mainstream portions of the Internet, including our own website, were awash with the outpourings of a vast number of fearful vaccine-skeptics, with the debate only subsiding after the February outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war diverted public attention toward an entirely different issue.

From the beginning I was extremely doubtful of all these anti-vaccine arguments and I presented my contrary views in a lengthy interview with Mike Whitney. Together with a couple of follow-up columns, it provoked some 4,600 comments totaling 850,000 words, the overwhelming majority of those responses being intensely hostile to my position:

As more and more public health data came in, my skepticism of the anti-vaccination position hardened, and in January of last year I published an article summarizing it, followed by an additional article six months later

Although I certainly regard myself as a member of the anti-anti-vaxxer camp, I think my views on the issue are actually quite moderate, as I spelled out in a couple of early paragraphs in those two articles:

Anti-vaxxers come in a wide variety of different types, and I’d be the first to acknowledge that some of their arguments seem perfectly reasonable. The Covid vaccines were rushed into production without the usual lengthy testing period and the most popular versions used in the West rely upon an innovative new mRNA technology, so it seems quite plausible that the negative side effects have been far greater than from our annual flu shots. Billions around the world have now been vaccinated for Covid, and I would hardly be surprised if many, many tens of thousands have died as a consequence. But such losses would represent merely a tiny sliver of the 15 or 20 million killed by the disease itself, and if the medical experts are correct and vaxxing greatly reduces the risk of severe illness, the cost-benefit ratio is tremendously positive, at least for individuals who are middle-aged or older.

Mandatory vaccination efforts enforced by serious legal or employment sanctions are the explosive flashpoint of the anti-vaxxer movement, but these never made any sense to me. The vaccines appear ineffective in preventing infection or transmission, and their main benefit is to greatly reduce the risk of serious illness or death. So the vaccinated have little to fear from those who reject the needle, while the latter can make an informed—or perhaps emotional—choice in weighing the risks of a relatively untested vaccine against those of severe Covid illness. Given the extreme paranoia of a considerable slice of anti-vaxxers, heavy governmental pressure may even be proving counter-productive.

For years, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had been one of the most prominent public figures in the anti-vaxxing movement, and I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that the positions he had taken in his massive #1 Amazon best-seller were equally moderate on the other side, as I had earlier noted in my strongly favorable review of his important book:

Surprisingly enough, and very contrary to my expectations, Kennedy’s stated position on vaccines seemed rather mild, quite different from the wild fear-mongering so regularly encountered on the Internet. He claimed that many vaccines weren’t properly tested, often had harmful side-effects, and were promoted mostly due to the profiteering of greedy pharmaceutical corporations and their subverted governmental regulators, accusations far more moderate—and far more plausible—than I had assumed he would make. While it’s not at all uncommon for wild-eyed anti-vaxxers to warn of millions—or even billions!—of deaths due to the current Covid vaccination drive, I didn’t see any such egregious claims in the carefully-documented chapters of this book…

Unlike some of his more extreme supporters, Kennedy seemed to fully admit that Covid is a dangerous disease, but correctly emphasized its extreme age-skew. He pointed out that the vaccines have proven far less effective than originally predicted, and he noted that they were rushed into widespread release without sufficient testing, which may eventually lead to major future health problems. The legal fig-leaf that allowed the normal regime of patient trials to be set aside was the claim that no other medical treatment existed, and this probably explains the widespread attacks on the use of IVM. Moreover, the vaccination of children or the youthful seems very misguided given mildness of the illness for those age-cohorts.


It’s now been nearly six months since I last reviewed the Covid vaccination controversy, so I decided to revisit the topic, partly prompted by a new book I had recently received on the issue, published under the auspices of Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense organization.


The title was “Cause Unknown” and the author was Edward Dowd, a highly-successful former Wall Street fund manager who had become a vocal public critic of the Covid vaccines in 2021. Although only released in mid-December and priced at a hefty $34.99, the book has already become quite successful, currently ranked #274 across all of Amazon’s millions of selections, while also having touched the #1 spot in the specific categories of virology, immunity, and vaccinations.


The 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy possibly ranks as the single most famous event of the twentieth century.

For nearly sixty years, there have been widespread suspicions that he died at the hands of a conspiracy, as did his brother Robert a few years later. Although these “conspiracy theories” have been ignored or dismissed by nearly our entire mainstream media, they have inspired hundreds or thousands of books and films along with countless articles, and have been widely believed by large portions of the American public. The resulting loss of faith in our major institutions has been dramatic, leading to today’s intense popular skepticism on so many other issues, whether justified or unjustified.

Our government has still never released all of its official records on the death of our 35th President, but after almost six decades that monumental cover-up may finally be starting to collapse.

Tucker Carlson has the most popular cable news show, and late last week he aired an explosive segment in which he declared that the JFK assassination had been the work of a conspiracy, with our own CIA heavily involved. His nightly broadcast audience is over 3 million and just one copy of his Youtube video has already been watched 1.4 million times. So these shocking claims from a major media outlet have now reached many millions of ordinary Americans, probably more than anything else on this topic in the thirty years since Oliver Stone’s Oscar-winning film JFK was playing in the theaters.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is a prominent public figure and best-selling author, nephew of the slain President and son of his murdered brother. He praised Carlson’s show as “the most courageous newscast in 60 years,” and declared: “The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d’etat from which our democracy has never recovered.”

These incendiary remarks were Retweeted more than 33,000 times with over 5 million views. So perhaps after more than two generations, the propaganda-bubble created by the dishonest 1964 Warren Commission may finally be starting to collapse.

As a consequence, my own past writings on the subject have received a burst of renewed attention:


Until a dozen years ago, I had never questioned the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination, and almost none of my own work on this topic has been original. I merely read the existing books and articles and drew my own conclusions, then published those findings.

But by purest coincidence, another massive cover-up may also now be collapsing, on a topic that has been my central focus for the last couple of years.

The global Covid epidemic has been one of the most important world events of the last hundred years, probably only rivaled by the two world wars and the Great Depression. More than 18 million people have already died, including over a million Americans, and the daily lives of many billions have been enormously disrupted.

Beginning in April 2020, I have published a long series of articles arguing that there is strong perhaps overwhelming evidence that the Covid outbreak was the result of an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran).

But given the tremendous importance of the issue, I’ve been very disappointed that so few others anywhere on the Internet have come forward to raise similar suspicions or even merely to mention my own controversial analysis. Since the early days of 2020, there has been an enormous amount of discussion on almost all other aspects of the global pandemic and its consequences, yet only an infinitesimal sliver has touched upon the apparent evidence of American foreknowledge and plausible culpability. However, that may finally be starting to change.

Earlier this month, the Daily Sceptic, a British webzine often focused on Covid-related issues, published an excellent article by editor Will Jones that independently raised some of the same issues, particularly focusing upon the secret DIA report produced in November 2019 that seemingly implied foreknowledge of the Wuhan outbreak.

This piece was later republished by the Infowars and Brownstone Institute websites, bringing it to much wider attention, including my own. Meanwhile, Toby Young, the prominent British public intellectual who had founded the webzine, Tweeted it out to his 240,000 followers:

The Brownstone institute has also been very heavily focused on Covid issues, and its editor Jeffrey Tucker soon published a somewhat related article noting the extremely suspicious timing of America’s 2019 Crimson Contagion simulation. That eight month federal/state exercise had been run by Robert Kadlec, our country’s chief biowarfare advocate, and was aimed at preparing ourselves against infection from any dangerous respiratory virus that might hypothetically arise in China, with the effort concluding just before the Covid virus suddenly appeared in Wuhan.

The author declared it “the most intriguing element” he’d ever encountered in his years of writing about Covid and repeatedly Tweeted it out to his 137,000 followers, while it was also republished on the Daily Sceptic website.



Tucker Carlson and RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination

Tucker Carlson hosts the most popular cable news show and last Thursday he aired an explosive segment in which he declared that that 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy had been the work of a conspiracy, with our own CIA heavily involved.

Carlson’s regular nightly audience is over 3 million, and more than a million have already watched the Youtube video, so these bombshell accusations regarding the events in Dallas have probably now reached more ordinary Americans than anything else on the topic in the three decades since Oliver Stone’s Oscar-winning film JFK was playing in the theaters.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nephew of the slain President and son of his murdered brother praised Carlson’s show as “the most courageous newscast in 60 years,” and his remarks have been Retweeted more than 22,000 times.

Kennedy is a prominent public figure and best-selling author, with the strongest possible personal standing on the murder of his uncle. But I suspect that if Elon Musk hadn’t bought Twitter, that Tweet would have been immediately shadow-banned, disappearing with scarcely a trace.

In recent decades, such conspiratorial beliefs on the JFK assassination have been largely confined to the Left, with Stone himself being a prime example. But Carlson is one of America’s most influential conservatives, so he may have successfully implanted these ideas among a portion of our citizenry previously unexposed to them. He also noted that widespread use of the insulting phrase “conspiracy theory” only began in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, with the CIA itself successfully marginalizing its critics by promoting that accusation in the compliant media.

Indeed, as a consequence of those decades of skewed and dishonest media coverage, I had spent most of my entire life assuming that such “conspiracy theories” were total nonsense and had never taken them seriously. But about a dozen years ago, I stumbled across some surprising facts and later began a serious investigation, eventually leading me to publish several articles summarizing my remarkable conclusions:

Manipulating the JFK Assassination Cover-Up

By purest chance, Carlson’s show had aired just a few days after I had finished reading an important book on the JFK assassination that someone had brought to my attention last year. Originally published almost thirty years ago, this work provided some crucial insights into how the political cover-up of the conspiracy had been arranged, a cover-up that has now successfully endured for nearly six decades. The most powerful man in the world had been killed at the very height of America’s postwar success and prosperity, yet nearly all of America’s political elites were successfully enlisted to suppress the truth of what had happened.


John Newman had spent twenty years in Military Intelligence and then became a professor of history at the University of Maryland. Since then, he had applied the technical skills that he had honed in his many years of government service to analyzing the bureaucratic minutia of declassified government files and using this material to produce a series of books on the hidden side of American government policies during the 1960s, including our growing involvement in Vietnam and especially the complex circumstances of the JFK Assassination. Oswald and the CIA originally appeared in 1993, but the 2008 edition included a new epilogue, summarizing some of his most important findings.

The book is a lengthy one, running over 650 pages with notes and appendices, and his exhaustively detailed analysis of the released intelligence files and their interpretation can be eye-glazingly dull at points, but his broader conclusions are not difficult to state. The profusion of internal CIA documents regarding Oswald and his movements seems completely inconsistent with any institutional plot at the Agency to kill Kennedy, but might fit very well with the hypothesis of a “rogue faction” at the CIA having played a central role in the affair.

Newman argued that Oswald was exactly the “patsy” that he claimed to be, but more importantly he drew a very sharp distinction between the small group of plotters who had actually organized the JFK assassination itself and the much larger group who carried out the subsequent cover-up, with the motives of many of those latter individuals being entirely different. As he persuasively explained in his epilogue, the conspirators had created a false intelligence trail suggesting that Oswald might have been a Soviet agent, and then used that misinformation to force our fearful government leadership into become their unwitting accomplices after the fact, compelling them to suppress all evidence of any conspiracy in Dallas:

It is now clear that most of the U.S. leaders and officials who participated in the national security cover-up had nothing to do with the plot that was hatched before the president’s murder. Many of them—including leading legislators and Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren—were motivated by the perceived threat of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. Inside the executive branch of government, many others were motivated by the desire to protect their jobs and their institutions. Their collective actions, however, were not the result of an accident; rather, they were the forced checkmate in the endgame of an ingenious plan.

The plan was designed to force official Washington to bury a radioactive story in Oswald’s files in order for America to survive. The plan worked. No matter how sloppy the performance of the shooters in Dallas was, no matter how bungled the autopsy and the handling of the evidence was, all would be trumped by the threat of WWIII and 40 million dead Americans. From the beginning, the plot was based upon the assumption that, when presented with this horrific possibility, everyone would fall into line. This assumption was correct.

About Ron Unz

A theoretical physicist by training, Mr. Unz serves as founder and chairman of, a content-archiving website providing free access to many hundreds of thousands of articles from prominent periodicals of the last hundred and fifty years. From 2007 to 2013, he also served as publisher of The American Conservative, a small opinion magazine, and had previously served as chairman of Wall Street Analytics, Inc., a financial services software company which he founded in New York City in 1987. He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from Harvard University, Cambridge University, and Stanford University, and is a past first-place winner in the Intel/Westinghouse Science Talent Search. He was born in Los Angeles in 1961.

He has long been deeply interested in public policy issues, and his writings on issues of immigration, race, ethnicity, and social policy have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Nation, and numerous other publications.

In 1994, he launched a surprise Republican primary challenge to incumbent Gov. Pete Wilson of California, running on a conservative, pro-immigrant platform against the prevailing political sentiment, and received 34% of the vote. Later that year, he campaigned as a leading opponent of Prop. 187, the anti-immigration initiative, and was a top featured speaker at a 70,000 person pro-immigrant march in Los Angeles, the largest political rally in California history to that date.

In 1997, Mr. Unz began his “English for the Children” initiative campaign to dismantle bilingual education in California. He drafted Prop. 227 and led the campaign to qualify and pass the measure, culminating in a landslide 61% victory in June 1998, effectively eliminating over one-third of America’s bilingual programs. Within less than three years of the new English immersion curriculum, the mean percentile test scores of over a million immigrant students in California rose by an average of 70%. He later organized and led similar initiative campaigns in other states, winning with 63% in the 2000 Arizona vote and a remarkable 68% in the 2002 Massachusetts vote without spending a single dollar on advertising.

After spending most of the 2000s focused on software projects, he has recently become much more active in his public policy writings, most of which had appeared in his own magazine.

Personal Classics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World