fa!l to work, or how unnecessary they are

Start trying 

Since vacc!nes were first invented, governments and the medical profession have had a compulsive need to defend the products, regardless of how much they hurt people, how much they fail to work, or how unnecessary they are (e.g. because the disease in question is unlikely to ever harm people or a safe and effective treatment for it already exists).

My best guess to explain this phenomenon is that the vaccination meme is extremely appealing to the ruling class because it provides a simple solution (injecting everyone) for a complex problem (ensuring the health of the nation), and is relatively easy to implement since all it requires is a leader doubling down using the force of the state against anyone who does not comply (which leaders often default to doing for a variety of problems).

Unfortunately, since life is not that simple, this approach always falls short and requires leaders and governments who commit to it to then cut a lot of corners as problems inevitably arise. As a result, some of the recurring themes you see in the forgotten vaccine disasters include:

Creating an “emergency” situation which is used to justify cutting corners on vaccine.

Assuming rather than verifying that the vaccine actually works before giving it to the population.

Burying data or test results that show the current vaccine should not be given to human beings and gagging government scientists who raised concerns about the product.

Allowing a dangerous and unsafe process be used to mass produce the vacc!nes. This commonly occurs when switching from the clinical trials (which requires a much smaller amount of the vaccine to be produced) to the general market.

Choosing a cheaper (and hence more profitable) production process rather than a safer (but more expensive and thus less profitable) vaccine production process.

Having everyone repeat the mantra that “the vacc!nes is safe and effective” and that there is no evidence to the contrary — to the point medical professionals come to believe this is so even when they see the injuries with their own eyes.

Note: Since there is so much money in vaccination (and the government’s stamp of approval means most of the country will buy each new vaccine), a robust apparatus (discussed here) now exists to bribe politicians and the mass media to push those products and bury any red flags that emerge along the way.

One of the best explanations I’ve seen to explain why the government will never reconsider the more dangerous vacc!nes can be found within this 2011 WHO statement:

The VAERS Compromise

Recognizing that it was critical for the public to have a way to report vaccine injuries which bypassed this corrupt system, the parents demanded that the vaccine legislation included a provision for such a reporting system.

For this article, I reached out, Barbara Loe Fisher, the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, who shared the following with me:

“Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT) was founded in 1982 by DPT vaccine injured children. When we were asked by Congress to participate in legislation to protect the childhood vaccine supply in the U.S. due to threats by vaccine manufacturers that they would stop producing childhood vacc!nes unless they were given a total liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits, among the conditions we set for our coming to the table was that the legislation:

1. Had to put equal emphasis on preventing vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths through the institution of vaccine safety provisions, one of which would be a centralized Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) that would be open and accessible to the public for input of vaccine reaction reports, as well as viewing of reports made.

2. That the legislation could not completely shield the vaccine manufacturers from liability or shield negligent doctors from medical malpractice lawsuits.

There was no compromise on either of those two points. When the Act was passed in November 1986, it contained vaccine safety informing recording, reporting and research provisions (including VAERS). Those safety provisions were unique contributions of the co-founders of NVIC (Dissatisfied Parents Together became the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) in the late 1980’s).

When the Act was passed in 1986, the doctors and other vaccine administrators were still liable for medical malpractice and the vaccine manufacturers were still liable for product design defect (failure to make the product safer). The law was gutted after it was passed by congressional amendments, rule making authority by H.H.S. and, in 2011, by the US Supreme Court.

Yes, we insisted that VAERS be open to the public in terms of being able to directly report to the system when doctors refused to make vaccine adverse event reports and we wanted all reports made to VAERS to be transparently accessible and able to be viewed by the public.

VAERS is a unique vaccine reaction reporting system because it is transparent and researchers around the world have used it – including CDC researchers – to publish studies on vaccine adverse events. VAERS, as you know, played a key role in raising public awareness about the reactivity of COVID-19 vacc!nes.

Dr. Fauci had nothing to do with creation of the 1986 Act [this was in response to one of my questions]. That legislation, which had bipartisan support in Congress from the beginning, was created over a four and a half year period by the legislative staffs of Rep. Henry Waxman, Senator Edward Kennedy and Sen. Orrin Hatch in consultation with the co-founders of Dissatisfied Parents Together and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Environmental law attorney Jeffrey Schwartz, whose daughter was brain injured and then died from a DPT vaccine reaction as an infant, was the first President of NVIC and was the primary negotiator on behalf of NVIC on Capitol Hill during the creation of the Act.”

Note: Because of their work, the Act also had a stipulation requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to create a task force devoted to researching ways to develop safer vacc!nes and to produce two reports each year for Congress on that work. A 2018 lawsuit from ICAN and the CHD proved that the H.H.S. failed to do this.

That is one an example of how the H.H.S. will often willfully omit doing things it is legally required to do. Another were investigations that showed Fauci and his lackeys over and over would find ways to avoid disclosing to their research subjects that they were making money off those experiments (despite being legally required to and repeatedly requested to).

What Happened to VAERS?

Because of the 1986 law, a curious situation was created. The government was forced to create VAERS even though it desperately did not want anything to exist that could show the public the dangers of the vaccine program.

As a result, a concerted effort was done to undermine VAERS as much as possible so that it could not “weaken public support of the vaccine program.” Similarly, consider the previously mentioned example of the H.H.S. scrapping a system which showed VAERS was identifying less than 1% of vaccine injuries.

In turn, the VAERS we have today is a dysfunctional mess and a far cry from what had been promised in 1986. Nonetheless, it’s the best we’ve got, and enough data still exists that members of the public have been able to sort through it and discover just how dangerous the vaccine program is.

After it became clear the public VAERS database had serious issues, a group of data scientists got together and produced OpenVAERS, a laborious attempt to clean up VAERS and make it functional enough to be accessible to the general public. Because of this, OpenVAERS in their FAQ provide one of the most poignant pictures of the current state of VAERS. For example, through their research, they learned:

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated "In 2012, [VAERS] reports were received from health care providers (41%), manufacturers (29%), other sources (17%) and vaccinees or families (14%)," while the CDC in 2020 stated “The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (37%) and health care providers (36%).

The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (10%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (10%).”

Note: Steve Kirsch has also proven that the management at VAERS is refusing to publicly acknowledge the safety signals the system is designed to detect.

The BMJ Investigation

Through their work, OpenVAERS (and others) were able to identify many pieces of evidence suggesting VAERS was deliberately withholding crucial data from the public and refusing to record or document many critical vaccine injuries.

These issues eventually prompted the BMJ (one of the top five medical journals) to investigate what was happening, and in turn formally corroborated what many of us have observed ever since the vacc!nes hit the market.

“VAERS is supposed to be user friendly, responsive, and transparent. However, investigations by The BMJ have uncovered that it’s not meeting its own standards. Not only have staffing levels failed to keep pace with the unprecedented number of reports since the rollout of covid vacc!nes but there are signs that the system is overwhelmed, reports aren’t being followed up, and signals are being missed.

The BMJ has spoken to more than a dozen people, including physicians and a state medical examiner, who have filed VAERS reports of a serious nature on behalf of themselves or patients and were never contacted by clinical reviewers or were contacted months later.

Our investigation has also found that, in stark contrast to the US government’s handling of adverse reaction reports on drugs and devices, the publicly accessible VAERS database on vacc!nes includes only initial reports, while case updates and corrections are kept on a separate, back end system.”

Specifically:

VAERS makes it difficult to enter reports into it. To quote the BMJ, “the format is cumbersome and it times you out,” (a story I have also repeatedly heard).

VAERS makes it impossible to update an existing report to something more serious (e.g., to note that an injured patient then died).

Often it took VAERS months to get back to someone (if they did at all) and frequently VAERS representatives provided conflicting information to the reporters or discouraged them from making a report all together. For example, doctors who reported fatal reactions in their patients were never contacted by VAERS.

In a survey by React19 of 126 reported injuries, 22% were never made available on VAERS, while 12% initially could be found on VAERS were then taken down by the CDC. This means one-third of the reports VAERS received are being deliberately hidden from the public. Note: I also directly know of cases where this happened.

Prior to COVID, VAERS received 50,000 reports each year, but only had the capacity to process a few thousand serious reports (which suggests VAERS was deliberately understaffed).

VAERS has received 1.7 million reports since the rollout of covid vacc!nes, including 20,000 deaths. Yet the CDC has not linked a single one of those deaths to the vaccine, even though many other countries have. Note: There has been a lot of evidence suggesting the vacc!nes significantly increase your risk of dying (Ed Dowd has done an excellent job compiling the death data). Recently one of my colleagues was able to obtain a large data set of deaths in the elderly population and vaccination status (something we have been trying to get since the vacc!nes came out). It showed taking the vaccine roughly doubles your rate of dying for a few months — which is a big deal.

Since COVID, almost 20% of the reports VAERS received were serious ones which were “required” to be followed up on.

A team of physicians have repeatedly contacted the FDA to air their concerns that no one is following up with them about severe and fatal injuries they reported to VAERS. The FDA has responded by simply insisting that it is doing so — despite significant evidence to the contrary.

Pfizer currently has around 1000 full time employees assigned to processing vaccine injuries reported to the company (this number may be as high as 1800). The CDC has declined to state how many it has assigned to VAERS, but the number is quite small as VAERS is a part of a department which only has between 70-80 employees in total.

It is very difficult to get physicians to report reactions to VAERS if they have not already been told that the reactions might be associated with the vaccine. So by the FDA and the CDC refusing to raise the possibility other conditions could be linked to the vaccine, they are not appearing in VAERS, which in turn is being used to argue they do not exist.

Conclusion

One of the greatest challenges we have faced with the vacc!nes is the steadfast refusal to acknowledge they could be harming people, despite the overwhelming degree of evidence we can all see with our own eyes that something very bad is happening.

Since the reliability of VAERS has played such a pivotal part of this discussion, I feel the BMJ’s investigation is critical for the current situation as it provides concrete proof the government is covering up this unprecedented wave of injuries.

In turn I would argue that VAERS’s systemic “failures” instead illustrate it is working exactly as intended — the government is doing everything it can to sabotage it but simultaneously it is still providing a way for the public to access the vaccine safety data Barbara Loe Fisher and her colleagues knew the government would do everything it could to hide from us.

I fully understand how hard it is to believe the government could do something like this. In this series, I hope I have provided an explanation for why such awful behavior is deeply engrained within a bureaucracy which has repeatedly proven it will do whatever it can to cover up the harms of vaccination — regardless of how much harm they cause.

So next time someone “educates” you by pointing out VAERS is not reliable, point out that VAERS is supposed to be our premier system for monitoring vaccine safety and ask them “why is there still nothing better?”

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest

end to the parasit!c and useless p0l!t!cal caste that is destroying this country

"The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism; there is no better way to stifle that criticism than to attack any isolated voice, any raiser of new doubts, as a profane violator of the wisdom of his ancestors.  Another potent ideological force is to deprecate the individual and exalt the collectivity of society.  For since any given rule implies majority acceptance, any ideological danger to that rule can only start from one or a few independently thinking individuals.  The new idea, much less the new critical idea, must needs begin as a small minority opinion; therefore, the State must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that defies the opinions of the mass.  "Listen only to your brothers" or "adjust to society" thus become ideological weapons for crushing individual dissent.  By such measures, the masses will never learn of the nonexistence of the Emperor's clothes." Anatomy of the State, Murray N. Rothbard Oops, they did it again. First Giorgia Meloni was elected prime minister of Italy.  This despite the objections and smears of the self-important and seemingly all-powerful US Deep State and its Mockingbird press, which in the run up to the Italian general election had painted her as the second coming of Benito Mussolini. Never mind that the politics of the corporatist Deep State are a lot closer to Mussolini's fascist vision than those of Meloni, who in the "real world" pragmatically governs from center-right – to the great disappointment of many on both sides of the spectrum. In the current US corporate media-approved version of the political spectrum, the go-to political character assassination terms "Trump-like", "alt right", "far right", fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi, and radical are all bundled up as synonyms, interchangeably and reflexively applied to anyone whose political beliefs are to the right of the modern embodiments of Marx and Engels' version of socialism collectively referred to as "Woke" culture. Each interchangeable term being repeatedly weaponized and launched in harmonized Qassam rocket barrages against non-sycophant independent thinkers, writers, politicians, scientists or physicians who refuse to contort their speech to fit the approved narratives, gender identifiers and pretzel logic of the Globalist oligarchy.   Unfortunately for those who maintain the thesaurus of approved "advocacy journalism" euphemisms, "anti-Semitic" has recently become both too inconvenient and too complicated, necessitating that it be struck from currently approved character assassination lexicon.   After decades of alternating corrupt mismanagement by the two entrenched traditional Argentine parties (Peronists vs Radicals), an academic economist of the Austrian school named Javier Milei has been elected President of Argentina, adding salt to the self-inflicted wounds of approved narrative defenders. And once again, we are predictably being treated to the usual stream of character assassination and hate speech from Deep State corporatist media lapdogs.  My, how the Mockingbird does love to sing.  As with Meloni's election, we have been treated to yet another peek at the Wizard behind the curtain playing his Mighty Wurlitzer. Labeling Javier Milei as a television personality, a common trope in both domestic and international corporate media, is a gross distortion of reality. Why is Milei's training in the Austrian School of economics relevant? Because the economic logic of the Austrian School is based on strict adherence to the idea that social phenomena result exclusively from the motivations and actions of individuals. Austrian school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action. In other words, growth in the "wealth of nations" is the consequence of actions of the individuals which create value and wealth. The Austrian School emphasizes the importance of free markets, individualism, and minimal government intervention. It should come as no surprise that Ayn Rand highly recommended the economic writings of the Austrian school, particularly those of Ludwig von Mises. Is this starting to make sense now? Dr. Milei is basically an intellectual academic who became a truth warrior in response to the damage he saw being done to his country by a parasitic administrative state. In other words, he is yet another intellectual critic who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.  He graduated with a degree in economics from the University of Belgrano, and continued on to obtain a masters degree and doctorate in economics from the Instituto de Desarrollo Economico y Social and Torcuato di Tella University. For over twenty years he taught University-level courses in macroeconomics, economic growth, microeconomics, and mathematics for economists, and authored several books in economics and politics. His signature presidential campaign rallying cry has been "Long live freedom, damn it!", coupled with criticism of the "thieving and corrupt political class" of Argentina. Austrian school logic formulated as populism for the masses. Labeling Dr. Milei as Trump-like is clearly a gross oversimplification. Don't cry for Argentina, a once and future jewel and the second largest South American country, which is endowed with an embarrassment of natural resource wealth. Which assets have been mismanaged for decades by a parasitic and dysfunctional government, resulting in widespread economic devastation. During the 19th century the country enjoyed an almost-unparalleled increase in prosperity, resulting in early 20th century Argentina becoming the seventh-wealthiest nation in the world.  In 1896, Argentina's GDP per capita surpassed that of the United States, and the country was consistently in the global economic top ten until at least 1920. Argentina remained among the fifteen richest countries until the meteoric mid-century rise to the Presidency of a previously unknown minor military leader named Juan Perón.  This political earthquake was followed by a cascade of bad management, political, social, and economic upheaval, USG meddling, and a notorious "dirty war" of the State against dissident citizens. Now, after decades of high government spending and economic stagnation, despite abundant natural resources, Argentina has become one of the poorest countries in the world. A case study in how a prosperous modern economy can be strangled by an overbearing and corrupt administrative state bureaucracy.  Sound familiar? Dr. Javier Milei leads the "La Libertad Avanza" (Liberty Advances) coalition, and has vowed to "put an end to the parasitic and useless political caste that is destroying this country". His parties' campaign has broken the mold of traditional Argentine politics by focusing heavily on social media, particularly TikTok and YouTube, where he developed a strong following among younger supporters. "Today, the reconstruction of Argentina begins" he confidently asserted, as historic election results poured in. "Argentina's situation is critical. The changes our country needs are drastic. There is no room for gradualism, no room for lukewarm measures." "Argentina will return to the place in the world which it should never have lost." No wonder the US Deep State and it's Mockingbird media are out to draw blood from this charismatic populist economist. One who dares to combine alternative social media presence with attacks on a parasitic and useless political caste. The elite members of the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations must be wetting themselves.  Time to let slip the dogs of the censorship-industrial complex, and to watch the Wikipedia and Google ranking manipulation begin.  Don't forget the popcorn. The truth is that they should be running for their stockpile of Depends.  For Austrian school economist Milei self-identifies as an anarcho-capitalist.  Not as a "Trump-like", "alt right", "far right", fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi radical. As such, Milei happens to be at the leading edge of a growing contrarian intellectual movement which directly challenges the legitimacy of the administrative state.  One which has now grown to the point where it can no longer be dismissed as "a small minority opinion", and has been catapulted onto the world stage by an independent Latin American nation with nothing to lose and everything to gain. I kept reading and hearing the term "anarcho-capitalism" pop up in edgy discussions with the various thought leaders whom I encounter in my daily random walk through the community of freedom and sovereignty advocates.  Trying it out for size with various free-thinking investors, I repeatedly heard "Yes, I think that term fits the way I think about things".   So, having long ago learned to distrust Wikipedia for opinions on any freethinking ideas, I started texting others in my circle.  And I struck gold with Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute.  I asked Jeffrey "So, are you an anarcho-capitalist?" He immediately replied "I've never called myself that.  Too rationalistic and formulistic for my tastes.  I just prefer freedom generally speaking, though my teacher was the creator of that term". Bingo.  I replied "Interesting.  Who is?"  He simply responded "Murray Rothbard".  I came back with "OK, so now I have to look him up.  Recommended reading on background?" "Oh goodness, it's all so much", he replied (I can easily imagine his voice) "I kind of recoil at most of this heavy ideological stuff these days, but let me think for a moment". And then he threw open a new "thought" door for me to pass through.  "Here is Rothbard's view of the state as an institution" he wrote, followed by a PDF copy of the book "Anatomy of the State".  I sent a copy over to Jill as we were boarding yet another flight across the pond, and we both started pouring through this little 58 page gem published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  We were astounded by the ideas flowing from the pages.  And suddenly it all made sense.  Idea space we had been independently groping, like the blind men trying to describe an elephant, suddenly came into focus, and aspects of the Globalists' actions and agenda took on new meaning. Indeed, as captured in Dr. Milei's vow to "put an end to the parasitic and useless political caste that is destroying this country", at the core of Rothbard's analysis is the thesis that the State is an insatiable economic parasite, constantly growing by feeding off of the surplus productive labor of those free sovereign individuals over which it asserts the right to govern.   If one was seeking to develop a diametrically opposed alternative to globalist "one world government" techno-fascism, anarcho-capitalism would be a pretty good candidate in my opinion.   In the modern Brave New World which is being aggressively pushed toward a "Dark Aeon" transhumanist future at breakneck speed, the global financial and political elite find the decentralized diversity of cultures and independent nation states an inconvenient source of systemic "friction", of inefficiency in navigating and achieving the financially optimized utilitarian, Malthusian, homogenized transhuman future which they seek in their endless quest for greater return on investment.  So what's a nirvana and immortality-craving psychopathic oligarch to do, in his quest to forever maintain wealth and global dominance?  Substitute a single "harmonized" global government to resolve the messy chaos of human cultural and political diversity.  Trade a complicated mix of different small parasites for one big one to rule them all.  Problem solved.  Those of us being parasitized will own nothing, be happy, have nowhere to go and no way to get out from under the thumb of this New World Order.  What could possibly go wrong? I submit that we have already lived through a B-grade movie version of that future during the COVIDcrisis of the last four years.  You ask what could possibly go wrong with a top-down, centralized authoritarian diktat response to daily management of a globalized one-world socioeconomic system?  If you do not immediately recognize the answer, than you are clearly suffering from mass formation (psychosis), and best of luck adapting to the future which is coming at you like a freight train. Judging by the political stalemate and exploding debt which are the defining characteristics of the current US Imperial administrative state, it may already be too late to stop the out of control freight train barreling towards the DC Beltway.  As Rothbard points out, the debts of any government are canceled in the event of either revolution or foreign takeover after a lost (political or economic) war.  And treaties are not contracts.  The indebtedness and collapse of the British royal Tudor family consequent to a failed civil war took down the Italian Medici banking empire.  Those who live by the sword often die by the sword. What fate awaits the Blackrock/Vanguard/State Street megafund if either USA or PRC/CCP default? But meantime (back at the ranch), by monitoring this economic and political experiment involving a government influenced by anarcho-capitalistic socioeconomic theory as it runs its course in Argentina, we may be treated to a foreshadowing of the future which a post BRICS currency west may soon encounter.  Breaking up with an entrenched fiat currency will be hard.  I suspect that softening the blow is one motive driving Globalist advocacy for central bank digital currency (CBDC). Perhaps the Mockingbird will not sing too loudly, its noisy territorial defense making it harder for freedom lovers to learn necessary lessons from this new Argentine economic experiment.  Suffice to say, investment opportunities abound for those who are awake and alert.   But I have no doubt that, in stubborn non-conformity with Malthusian predictions, both hope and innovation will continue to spring eternal in the human heart. HISTORY AS A RACE BETWEEN STATE POWER AND SOCIAL POWER Just as the two basic and mutually exclusive interrelations between men are peaceful cooperation or coercive exploitation, production or predation, so the history of mankind, particularly its economic history, may be considered as a contest between these two principles. On the one hand, there is creative productivity, peaceful exchange and cooperation; on the other, coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert Jay Nock happily termed these contesting forces: "social power" and "State power."  Social power is man's power over nature, his cooperative transformation of nature's resources and insight into nature's laws, for the benefit of all participating individuals. Social power is the power over nature, the living standards achieved by men in mutual exchange. State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production—a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers.  While social power is over nature, State power is power over man. Through history, man's productive and creative forces have, time and again, carved out new ways of transforming nature for man's benefit. These have been the times when social power has spurted ahead of State power, and when the degree of State encroachment over society has considerably lessened.  But always, after a greater or smaller time lag, the State has moved into these new areas, to cripple and confiscate social power once more. If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up—with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction. In this century, the human race faces, once again, the virulent reign of the State—of the State now armed with the fruits of man's creative powers, confiscated and perverted to its own aims.  The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained. Anatomy of the State, Murray N. Rothbard © 2023 Robert W Malone, MD Virginia

Things you should know about suicide. 

Things You Should Know About Suicide According to the World Health Organization, approximately 700,000 people die by suicide each year and it is the fourth leading cause of death among 15–29-year-olds worldwide. It's a huge and complex global public health issue, and most experts agree that suicide deaths occur for many different reasons and are the result of a complex interplay between many different risk and protective factors (which change over time).  Still, there are a lot of myths about it. Our goal today is to debunk some of these myths, and provide an evidence-based approach to helping people (perhaps including yourself) dealing with thoughts about suicide. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional mental health treatment. This content is designed for educational purposes. If you feel you may be suicidal, we strongly advise you to see a counselor, therapist, psychiatrist, or other appropriate professional right away. The resources listed at the end of this email can assist you in finding help.    Myths and facts about suicide  Myth #1: Asking about suicide makes somebody suicidal.   There are now many studies showing the opposite. People who are exposed to suicide-related content (e.g., questions about whether they have ever experienced suicidal thoughts) experienced reduced suicidal ideation and lowered the likelihood that the individual would later engage in suicidal behaviors (e.g., suicide attempt, non-suicidal self-injury). Similarly, asking persons with depression if they are having thoughts of suicide can reduce depressive symptoms in some cases. Lastly, some individuals at risk for suicide tend to experience less suicidal thoughts when they were assessed for risk.   Myth #2: If somebody really wants to kill themselves, nothing will stop them.   There have been several large, population-level studies that have found a similar pattern – most people (about 90%) who attempt suicide and live do not go on to die of suicide. Further, these studies also indicate that most people who attempt suicide and live, do not make another attempt (about 75%).   Myth #3: There is nothing we can do to help a person at risk for suicide.   Research supports several interventions and treatments that help reduce suicide risk. Limiting access to lethal methods for suicidal individuals (especially firearms) shows a strong association with reducing suicide deaths. There are also many well-researched psychotherapeutic treatments that may reduce the risk of suicide, such as Brief Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (B-CBT) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). Further, there are also quick interventions, such as Safety Plans (more on this later) that have been found to reduce suicide risk.   What do we actually know about suicide prevention?    There are well-researched, modern theories of suicide that agree on a general model for understanding why many people die of suicide. These theories include (but are not limited to) the Three-Step Theory (3ST) and the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITS); often referred collectively as ideation-to-action frameworks. This picture shows the general overlapping principles of ideation-to-action frameworks (i.e., both 3ST and ITS models) that help describe why many people die by suicide. No single risk factor can accurately predict who will die of suicide. This is because suicide risk is the result of a complex, dynamic interaction between a multitude of fluctuating risk and protective factors, so it is important to treat suicide risk with the utmost seriousness.  Although no single risk factor can accurately predict who will die of suicide, there are some risk factors that have been identified that appear to put people at higher risk than others: Alienation/withdrawal Disconnectedness Loneliness Believing they are a burden to others  Hopelessness Some mental disorders (e.g., depression, ADHD, panic disorder, PTSD, bipolar disorder) These are risk factors that, in combination with the risk factors noted above, create high-risk conditions.  For example, having access to lethal means by itself does not make someone want to die, but someone with suicidal thoughts who also has access to lethal means is at higher risk than someone with suicidal thoughts without access to lethal means.   How do you help someone with suicidal thoughts?   Suicidal crises (when people are actively deciding whether to go through with suicide) appear to usually be very brief. Thus, getting people through the day (or even the hour) can save lives.  One simple intervention that has been found to reduce suicide risk is called a Safety Plan. Safety plans are often used by clinicians, doctors, and other health professionals to help people get through a suicidal crisis - a highly stressful, emotional period when someone may consider attempting suicide. You can use a safety plan to help someone else or to help yourself.  A safety plan involves the following steps in advance of being acutely suicidal, so that you have a concrete plan of what to do if you're feeling suicidal: 1. Recognize Warning Signs. What are some warning signs (e.g., thoughts, images, behaviors) that a suicidal crisis may be developing? List two or three warning signs. If you can't imagine warning signs for a crisis, try imagining warning signs for a strong, negative emotional reaction. Example: When I start to think that my family would be better off without me. 2. Consider Independent Coping Strategies. What can you do to take your mind off your problems without contacting another person? Examples: Deep breathing, or playing video games. 3. Find Social Settings That Provide Distraction. If these coping strategies haven't worked after a few minutes, that's okay - let's move on to something else. Who are some people you would feel comfortable talking to/calling that could distract you? What social settings could you move to (e.g., a coffee shop, library) to help distract yourself? Generate two or more people or locations (write down telephone numbers if available). Example: Bryan Bower (111) 111-1111, or Vasa Park (the busy park by my house). 4. Consider Contacts to Ask For Help. Who are some people you can call to ask for help? These are people you feel comfortable talking to about what is going on, the difficulties you are having, etc. Provide two or three people you could call (e.g., close friends, family members, spouse/partner) and their phone numbers if available. Example: Sister (Jane) (111) 111-1111. 5. Contact Mental Health Professionals and Organizations. If you are seeing a clinician (e.g., psychologist, psychiatrist, counselor/therapist), write their name(s) and phone number(s). Also, list an urgent care center (e.g., hospital emergency room) address and phone number. If you live in the U.S., write down the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline phone number (1-800-273-8255) if these are not currently available. Example: Dr. Cromarty, (111) 111-1111. 6. Make the environment safer. List one or two ways you could make your environment safer (e.g., have someone temporarily hold onto your firearms/lock up firearms and store ammunition separately, remove sharp objects from being easily accessible, or remove medicines that could be lethal if taken in large doses). Example: Temporarily give my firearms to my best friend. If you would like to build a safety plan and receive a copy of it by email, plus explore more resources and some coping skills to deal with thoughts about suicide, we encourage you to try our free, 30-minute mini-course:   Mini-Course: What You Need To Know About Suicide This mini-course was written by Brian W. Bauer as part of our 2020 Micro Grants, and it was checked by mental health experts. Please keep in mind that it's not intended to be used as a substitute for professional treatment.   More resources   Here are some other reliable resources and information about suicide that you or someone you know may find helpful.  The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255). A US-based service that provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress. This also provides prevention and crisis resources for the caller, their loved ones, as well as information on best practices for professionals. ReThink.Org A UK-based service that provides information and education about mental health symptoms, provides crisis and recovery services, as well as information and local resources. SuicideCallBackService An AUS-based, nationwide service that provides professional 24/7 telephone and online counseling to people who are affected by suicide. This site is designed to help those feeling suicidal, those who are worried about someone who is suicidal, and those who have lost someone to suicide. We hope you find this information useful. Talking about suicide can be uncomfortable, but it's also a way to bring awareness to this major public health issue. As the World Health Organization puts it: "Stigma, particularly surrounding mental disorders and suicide, means many people thinking of taking their own life or who have attempted suicide are not seeking help and are therefore not getting the help they need. The prevention of suicide has not been adequately addressed due to a lack of awareness of suicide as a major public health problem and the taboo in many societies to openly discuss it. To date, only a few countries have included suicide prevention among their health priorities and only 38 countries report having a national suicide prevention strategy." World Health Organization Overview on Suicide 🔈 We've released a new podcast episode! 🔈 Journalism in the age of AI  - Spencer is joined by Dylan Matthews, senior correspondent at Vox, to discuss questions like: Will large language models (LLMs) replace journalists any time soon? On what types of writing tasks do LLMs outperform humans? Have the US news media become less truth-seeking in recent decades? Or is truth-seeking behavior merely an aberration from a norm of propagandizing? What did you think of this newsletter? Let us know by replying to this email!    Here at ClearerThinking.org, we offer many free mini-courses and tools to help you make better decisions, hone your reasoning, and create the life you want! Here's a sampling of our work: Mood Booster - Brighten your disposition fast with scientifically tested exercises that can improve your mood and and dispel the blues. Mental Traps - Scientists have discovered a slew of systematic errors in human thought. Learn about a few of the mind's mistakes in this brief introduction. Overconfidence Analyzer - Discover how accurate your confidence levels are likely to be for any skill. Like this article? If so, we'd love for you to share it by clicking below. Share Tweet Forward