Jabbed to Death and Disease

You must watch the 'Shots In The Dark' if you have a friend or relative who has unexpectedly died or developed a serious disease including cancer, heart disease, brain disease or diabetes since 2021.

My Commentary on the DARKHORSE Presentation:

In recent years, public discourse has become increasingly critical of how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled by government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities. Figures like Kevin McKernan have emerged as voices questioning the prevailing narratives, particularly around PCR testing, vaccine rollouts, and regulatory practices. McKernan, a prominent expert in molecular biology and sequencing technology, has raised significant issues about testing protocols, vaccine content, and informed consent—concerns that have spurred deeper inquiries into the practices of public health institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

One of McKernan’s primary critiques revolves around the widespread reliance on PCR testing as a means of diagnosing COVID-19. PCR tests, or polymerase chain reaction tests, are highly sensitive and can detect minute quantities of viral RNA. However, they cannot discern whether the virus detected is infectious. McKernan argues that the over-reliance on PCR testing led to inflated case counts, contributing to fear and panic. As PCR tests amplify genetic material, they can detect fragments of the virus even after a person is no longer contagious, meaning positive results do not necessarily indicate current infection. This misinterpretation, he posits, resulted in widespread fear tactics that influenced public behaviour and policy decisions without offering an accurate picture of actual COVID-19 infectiousness rates.

Further examining the response to COVID-19, McKernan raises questions about the longevity impact of the virus. He suggests that, contrary to popular belief, COVID-19 may not have significantly altered life expectancy. While the virus has undeniably taken lives, many of those affected were older adults or individuals with preexisting health conditions, leading him to argue that the overall mortality impact has been overstated. This has led McKernan and others to speculate on what would have happened if governments had done nothing or taken a less restrictive approach to managing the pandemic. Instead, the heavy-handed policies, including lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, were implemented in an attempt to control viral spread—yet their effectiveness remains contested.

The vaccine rollout, in particular, has become a focal point of scrutiny. McKernan questions the motivations behind the push to vaccinate large portions of the population, especially younger individuals with minimal risk of severe disease outcomes. As new variants emerged, the justification for continuous booster doses led McKernan to critique what he sees as a “vaccine conveyor belt”—a system where booster shots are constantly promoted without sufficient evidence of their effectiveness or necessity. He points out that despite high vaccination rates in many countries, breakthrough infections continued to occur, prompting doubts about the vaccine’s long-term efficacy and the justification for ongoing boosters.

One area of particular alarm for McKernan has been the inclusion of DNA and gene therapy components in COVID-19 vaccines. While messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were initially lauded as a novel and temporary genetic approach, McKernan discovered fragments of DNA in these vaccines—a finding that he believes suggests possible fraud or significant oversight. The presence of DNA, he argues, is unexpected and potentially indicative of contamination or a more profound disregard for the complexities of gene therapy within these vaccines. McKernan further highlights the inclusion of SV40, a component used in gene therapy, which he asserts is unnecessary for a traditional vaccine and raises questions about the intent behind its use.

Informed consent, a fundamental tenet of medical ethics, is another area where McKernan claims that pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies failed the public. By not fully disclosing the contents, risks, and novel mechanisms involved in the COVID-19 vaccines, he argues that these entities deprived people of the ability to make fully informed decisions regarding their health. McKernan contends that this constitutes a violation of the public’s trust and represents a concerning departure from standard medical and regulatory practices.

Another critique McKernan raises involves the vaccination of children, a demographic at low risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Given the lack of long-term data on vaccine safety in younger populations, he finds it difficult to justify vaccinating children and views it as an unnecessary risk. Additionally, McKernan notes that while public trust in the vaccine campaign appears to be waning—evident in declining booster uptake—the adverse effects on global public health, freedom, and individual autonomy remain considerable.

McKernan’s concerns extend beyond health policies; he points to broader sociopolitical dynamics, including economic policies and land ownership shifts that occurred during the pandemic. He suggests that the societal upheaval and fear of COVID-19 were used as pretexts for “land grabs” and centralisation of power, leaving the public more vulnerable and dependent on state-controlled health measures and surveillance. This, he believes, has exacerbated inequality and led to a decline in individual freedoms.

The handling of the pandemic, McKernan argues, demonstrates the dangers of what he calls “fiat science,” where scientific consensus is not achieved through rigorous debate and testing but rather through authoritative imposition. He believes this trend has degraded public trust in scientific and medical institutions, creating a society where decisions are driven more by political agendas than by empirical evidence and transparent discourse.

In reflecting on these experiences, McKernan advocates for a reevaluation of the scientific process, particularly the peer review system, which he argues can stifle dissenting voices and alternative hypotheses. Instead, he suggests a more decentralised approach to medicine and science, where transparency and accountability become the pillars of public health policy. For McKernan, these issues are not just professional but deeply personal, driving his commitment to expose what he views as the flaws and ethical breaches in the pandemic response.

McKernan’s observations call attention to the larger question of how society can better prepare for future health crises without sacrificing individual rights or the integrity of scientific processes. The COVID-19 pandemic response, he argues, exposed vulnerabilities in how health policies are formulated and implemented, particularly when major corporate interests are at stake. By questioning the entanglement of Big Pharma and regulatory bodies, McKernan highlights a concerning dynamic where profit motives can overshadow public health goals, with potentially dangerous consequences.

A significant takeaway from McKernan’s perspective is his call to reassess the role of public health authorities. He argues that these institutions should be committed to safeguarding health rather than implementing policies that serve as a vehicle for corporate and political agendas. The apparent alliance between pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies, he asserts, undermined the transparency needed for a balanced and well-informed public discourse. This relationship raises questions about accountability and the need for structural changes within regulatory frameworks to prevent such conflicts of interest from arising.

The concept of decentralising medicine, which McKernan advocates, is part of a growing movement to give individuals greater control over their health decisions and to diversify the sources of scientific authority. By decentralising medical research and encouraging open scientific debate, he believes that a more resilient, diverse, and trustworthy medical infrastructure can emerge. Such a system would prioritise patient well-being, place greater emphasis on ethical practices, and mitigate the risks of monopolistic control over health decisions.

McKernan’s insistence on the importance of transparency is echoed in his concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine’s classification. He questions whether these vaccines, often described as “countermeasures” by authorities, should instead be labelled as military tools rather than traditional vaccines, given the involvement of defence funding and rapid deployment. This reclassification, he argues, could have implications for liability protections and public expectations. By examining the terminology and frameworks used to expedite vaccine distribution, McKernan raises the issue of how public perception and understanding of medical products are shaped by language and regulatory shortcuts.

In advocating for a more principled scientific process, McKernan also addresses the need for reform in peer review, which he sees as potentially vulnerable to bias and censorship. He points to the resistance faced by researchers and medical professionals who question the status quo, often finding their work suppressed or marginalised. This, he argues, stifles innovation and limits the exploration of alternative treatments and ideas. A decentralised model, according to McKernan, would allow more voices to participate in the scientific discourse, creating a richer and more balanced approach to medical research and treatment development.

In looking at the larger impacts of the pandemic, McKernan also suggests that restrictive health mandates, such as prolonged lockdowns, mask requirements, and vaccine mandates, may have had counterproductive effects on public health. These measures, he contends, led to unintended consequences, including mental health issues, economic hardship, and increased isolation. McKernan’s critique aligns with a growing sentiment that the pandemic response may have inadvertently caused more harm than good by disregarding the full spectrum of health considerations in favor of a narrow focus on infection control.

The vaccination of children, which McKernan strongly opposes, illustrates the ethical and scientific dilemmas faced during the pandemic. The drive to vaccinate even the youngest members of society, despite the low risk of severe illness in children, highlights the potential for medical decisions to be driven by societal pressures and generalised policies rather than personalised risk assessments. McKernan’s concerns reflect a broader debate on medical ethics, particularly the need for a nuanced approach that takes into account the unique vulnerabilities and needs of different population groups.

The COVID-19 pandemic, according to McKernan, has revealed fundamental flaws in how public health crises are managed, raising questions about the role of fear in shaping public policy and the long-term implications of an over-reliance on pharmaceutical solutions. For McKernan, the issues exposed by the pandemic underscore the urgency of reevaluating how health systems operate, ensuring that policies are grounded in science, ethics, and genuine concern for public welfare rather than being unduly influenced by profit or political interests.

McKernan’s vision for the future of public health is one where transparency, accountability, and individual rights are prioritised. He advocates for policies that are flexible, science-based, and inclusive of diverse perspectives, challenging the medical community to build a system that serves people, not profit. His work and critiques serve as a reminder that health policies should empower individuals rather than restrict them, fostering a society where public health decisions are informed, equitable, and in the true interest of those they aim to protect.

In the end, McKernan’s concerns provide a roadmap for reform in public health and scientific research. He calls for a more ethical, decentralised, and transparent approach that honours the principles of informed consent and respects individual autonomy. His critiques are a rallying cry for those who believe in a system where science is a tool for public good, untainted by corporate interests or political agendas. As society reflects on the lessons of COVID-19, courageous voices like McKernan’s underscore the importance of vigilance, ethical integrity, and a commitment to truth in safeguarding both public health and democratic values, for without the truth there are no other virtues.

Ian Brighthope

Exposing the Turbo-Cancers

In honour of my friend and colleague, the late Dr. Jackie Stone

In this, the 4th session of the Stone Summit, Dr. James Royle discusses the impact of lockdowns on surgery, highlighting the failures of lockdown policy. He goes on to describe the unusual cases of pulmonary thrombosis observed in colorectal cancer follow-up patients, the correlation between mRNA COVID-19 injections and an increase in cancer cases, the concerning rise of aggressive multi-site cancer recurrences, particularly in younger patients, and the challenges surgeons face in voicing their concerns.

The 4th session from the Stone Summit took place on 14th October 2024. It is named after Dr. Jackie Stone, a brave doctor who suffered persecution for upholding her ethical principles. She was relentlessly and cruelly persecuted by the authorities, and unjustly stripped of her medical licence. This battle took a terrible toll on her and, tragically, she took her own life earlier this month.

To find out more and to highlight these safety concerns with your GP, please visit the People's Vaccine Inquiry for a template letter at: