Because, like a stopped clock, a monkey with a paint set, or Piers Morgan holding his fat finger up to the wind and hoping a cheque will stick, it's finally happened... The Guardian is right about something.

They published an article recently, entitled, "Covid vaccine hesitancy could be related to childhood trauma, study finds", and then listed a number of 'ACEs' - Adverse Childhood Experiences - that positively correlate with declining the Covid injection in adulthood. The article states: "The nine Aces included in the study were: physical, verbal and sexual abuse, parental separation, exposure to domestic violence, living with a household member with mental illness, alcohol and/or drug misuse, or a family member in prison."

It continues: "The results showed that the more trauma people had experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to mistrust NHS Covid-19 information, to feel unfairly restricted by the government and to support the end of mandatory face masks.

"People were twice as likely to break Covid rules if they had four or more Aces compared with none, while vaccine hesitancy was threefold higher with more than four Aces compared with none. More than four Aces were also associated with a desire to scrap social distancing."

And I emphatically agree with the Guardian on this. I am absolutely certain that difficult childhoods correlate positively with adults who see through the Covid scam, and I agree with the Guardian's insinuated explanation as to why this is, too - that difficulties in childhood often produce a person who doesn't trust authority.

Where the Guardian and I diverge, however, is that the Guardian is suggesting that this - the distrusting of the establishment and their rules and regulations - is pathological; that it is an irrational, self-destructive response borne out of suffering. That one should trust authority, and that not to do so is deeply delusional and dangerous, reflective of maladaptive beliefs formed in an unfortunate childhood.

Whereas the reality is, of course, that rejecting the diktats of the establishment and all its obscene and absurd "rules" regarding Covid is an extremely healthy, rational, and - ultimately - life-saving response. While I don't believe such a response is solely restricted to those who had a difficult childhood (of course not), there is definitely an important correlation to explore here.

I am willing to bet that an extremely significant percentage of people reading this now had more challenging childhoods than might be considered average. That they rebelled or struggled at school, were less likely to fit in or go with the flow, and frequently found themselves clashing with "authority" - bosses, MPs, doctors - as they went through life.

The Guardian wants to label all this - the distrusting of doctors, the rejecting of "experts", the general impudence and disobedience (just how very dare we?!) - as delusional, discordant, and very, very dangerous. That such behaviour represents an imminent threat, not just to our own lives, but to the fundamental foundations of society itself, in the same way the other possible consequences of childhood trauma (such as anti-social behaviour and crime) could - and the funny thing is, in a sane society, they'd have a point! In a sane, civilised society, built on proper foundations, and led by genuine people of wisdom and integrity, the constituent members of that society should be able to trust authority to guide them in the right direction, and it generally would be concerning, and potentially catastrophic, if large groups of people were wildly rebellious and rejected all the guidance and advice of the learned elders.

However, as we do not live in such a society - and rather, inhabit its complete and polar opposite - then a childhood featuring some level of difficulty, which has fostered the mistrust of authority in adulthood, can actually be profoundly protective. I can see this very clearly when I observe the landscape of my own childhood and the trajectories of those whom I grew up with, With only a few exceptions, all of my "normal childhood" peers are deeply invested in the Covid charade, whereas those who had more unusual and challenging childhoods are far more likely to be sceptics.

I certainly don't want to gloss over or glamorise trauma or suffering, but it appears, within the current context, to have some positive and protective effects - as even for those who had undramatic childhoods, it is often a shock or trauma in adulthood that "awakens" them to what is really going on, and therefore then goes on to prove protective.

It's bizarrely inverted (as everything is when you live in worldwide satanic cult, I suppose), but it seems that a happy, stable, undramatic early life might actually serve as a disadvantage at this current lunatic juncture of human history. Because, if you grew up trusting family, teachers, and other authority figures around you, then it's a natural corollary to go on to invest faith in scientists, "experts", and other adult establishment figures (unless you were lucky enough to have crazy conspiraquack parents, who warned you not to). And that's what it comes down to really, faith. Note the Covid mantra is "trust the science". Not "test the science". Not "rigorously analyse and reproduce the science". But "trust" it. And those who have been able to trust authority thus far, are, of course, far more likely to do just that.

I know not all people who experienced childhood trauma can see through the current situation, just as not all people who had happy childhoods are unable to - studying certain groups can never speak for everyone in those groups, but it can bring to light certain trends. I know that the exasperated "elite" must have invested a fortune in trying to ascertain why such a significant percentage of the population haven't been bewitched by the pantomime plague, and that is why the study quoted in The Guardian has been funded - and the commissioning overlords are probably quite astonished and annoyed by the results.

The ruling classes have done as much as possible to make childhood traumatic - injecting infants with poison, forcing them into prison-like indoctrination centres from the age of 4, and aggressively incentivising the collapse of the family and community - because the ruling classes are proponents of 'trauma brainwashing' and believe trauma makes people weak, malleable, and easy to control. And it certainly can do that in some circumstances. But it doesn't always. It can also create - for want of a better word - warriors. The Army doesn't train its soldiers by being nice, kind, and gentle to them, and that isn't usually the trajectory of a "truth warrior", either. As they say, damaged people are dangerous, because they know they can survive. Perhaps those who have struggled are more fiercely committed to their own freedom, autonomy, and right to self-determination, too.

For a "normie", the prospect of rejecting authority and risking ridicule and exclusion from mainstream society is incomprehensible. It's so alien and terrifying that they are unable to process it as a possibility. The tragic reality is that many of them would, quite literally, rather die. It's too threatening to everything they think they know about the world, and to the very foundations of their own identity. These are people who have learned all their lives that obedience, doing as they're told, and not rocking the boat are what keep them safe and accepted, and so to do otherwise now would be utterly unthinkable.

They therefore simply cannot perceive the reality that authority figures, who they've spent all their lives trusting and looking up to, are not acting in their interests now, because - if they've had a generally happy and successful life - that goes against everything they've experienced.

These kinds of people often like to mock and ridicule their "conspiracy mate Dave who works in a call-centre", for "thinking he knows better than scientists with multiple degrees". This shows that what they are completely unable to grasp is that, while said scientists may very well have more education, more money, and more prestige than "Dave", that doesn't necessarily - or usually - mean they are using their position and their privileges for good.

Scientists and other TV-touted "experts" have the same bottom line as everyone else - they need to be able to meet their financial responsibilities, which typically include, in their particular cases, eye-watering mortgage repayments, exorbitant private school fees, twice-annual skiing holidays, and, usually, at least one expensive ex-wife. Therefore, they ultimately exist in gilded cages, where they have to do what pays, or they will themselves become the proverbial Dave - financially ruined and on the bottom rung of the social ladder. People go into the professions - medicine in particular - to enjoy the status and the trappings of success that such professions bring. They are not going to give up that standard of living easily. They will do what pays. Whatever that is.

In the case of scientists, they predominantly earn their living by doing studies. Studies only get done if they're funded, and they only get funded if they serve establishment interests, because the establishment has all the money. It's as simple as that, and attempts to fundraise via non-establishment channels will be shut down.

Science and academia are now so corrupt (as both the editors of two of the world's most prestigious scientific journals have said) that any scientist who tries to research anti-establishment issues - such as, for instance, vaccine safety concerns - will simply have their funding terminated, be smeared and vilified by the bought-and-paid for mainstream press, and then have their career destroyed. All scientists know this. As many MDs have effectively (anonymously) said, "I know that vaccines are causing autism in children, but I can't say it publicly, or the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career, just like they they did to Andrew Wakefield." (Wakefield being the "disgraced" doctor who first identified a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, which has never been disproven and has been verified by other heavyweight studies, such as the one conducted by the CDC and the subject of the film 'Vaxxed'.)

Scientists are by and large puppets on strings jerked around by their ultra-wealthy marionette masters - or if they want to retain their careers, they are. They are told what to study and what to find. It's very easy - especially for highly intelligent and strategic scientists - to cherry-pick data, omit inconvenient findings, or straight-up lie, in order to find the results they have been instructed to find. If you think peer review is a reliable tool for catching any of this out, that just belies the fact you know little to nothing about peer review.

What "normies" cannot grasp is that the establishment - prominent scientists, TV doctors, universities and the NHS - do not represent our "benevolent wise elders", the creme de la creme of society, trying to guide the rest of us motley plebs towards a better future - on the contrary. The reality is that the worldwide establishment has been entirely infiltrated, and is completely controlled by, a hostile enemy force trying to destroy us, the ordinary people of the world. If that sounds far-fetched, then look at it like this: we have now been under some form of "emergency" restrictions for two years, and as they say, an "emergency" doesn't last two years. A war does.

Everything the establishment and ruling classes do is very carefully strategised and orchestrated to further enrich themselves (the world's richest elites having seen a huge increase in wealth during "the pandemic", whilst everyone else has got poorer), and to further consolidate their own power. A key integral part of further empowering and enriching themselves is to constantly attack, undermine, and ultimately obliterate the enemy - us.

[Tedious wailing interjection from normies, "but whhhhhhy would they do that?!" - Because they're ruthless, self-serving psychopaths who believe the world is overpopulated and that there are too many "useless eaters" overburdening the planet and consuming "their" resources, so they are always orchestrating mass casualty events - wars, famines, pretend plagues - to cull the human herd, especially now there have been so many technological advances that they can rely far more on robots/AI and don't need so many human slaves to serve them. They're not exactly subtle or discrete about this, either, and are always praising the merits of vast depopulation, with one of the most prominent members of the Royal Family publicly claiming he wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus so that he could help "solve overpopulation".]

Therefore, you can extrapolate that, by far the most dangerous and deadly products and services on offer in society, are the ones the establishment makes available to us for free (as they say, you shouldn't take health advice from anyone who believes the world is overpopulated, and I shouldn't have to explain that one). The danger progressively increases the more money the establishment invests in promoting these things, and the more they threaten, demonise, and penalise us if we don't accept.

So - if vaccines were really so good for us, they would be so wildly expensive that no ordinary person would be able to afford them. You know, like things that actually are good for us are, such as genuinely clean, non-neurotoxic water; real, glyphosate-free organic foods; and high-quality nutritional supplements. Why doesn't the government subsidise those things - the fundamental foundations of good health - rather than inadequately tested experimental injections? Why can families get as many vaccines as they want for free, but not quality food or warm houses? The answer is pretty obvious.

But I guess it's not obvious - it's not even conceivable as a possibility - if you learned in your most formative years to trust authority. A lot of "Covid sceptics", meanwhile, learned not to. They learned instead, to trust themselves.

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...

1. BuyMeACoffee for one-off or monthly donations
2. Patreon, for monthly pledges
3. Direct bank transfer, for either monthly or one-off donations, to Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.