Public Health and the False Narrative

Carl Tuttle

Hudson, NH, United States

Nov 24, 2021 — 

For the past three decades public health officials have been propagating a false Lyme disease narrative; Lyme disease is “hard to catch and easily treated” with a 2–4-week IDSA mandated treatment protocol.

Anyone who finds this difficult to believe I suggest you read my 2017 letter to Brenda Fitzgerald, MD former director of the CDC. That letter was sent to all of Fitzgerald’s predecessors with absolutely no response whatsoever from the CDC.

2017 Letter to Brenda Fitzgerald, MD

You may also want to review my June 2020 letter to the editor of the BMJ which exposes evidence of persistent infection (chronic Lyme) after extensive antibiotic treatment:

Lyme borreliosis: diagnosis and management

I have been calling for a congressional investigation into the mishandling of Lyme disease for the past TEN years with over 97,000 signatures from this petition alone.

It would appear that history repeats itself as we have yet another false narrative with the current pandemic once again propagated by our “trusted” public health officials.

As I mention in the letter below, “the world is getting a first-hand look at what our public health officials are capable of when there is no oversight and no one is ever held accountable” -Carl Tuttle

Letter to a NH State Representative regarding HR 4980 which would restrict travel without a jab passport.

———- Original Message ———-

To: NH State Representative
Date: 11/23/2021 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Freedom to Travel

Dear Rep ******,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the petition!

Instead of trying to fight off one draconian measure after another isn’t it time we (our legislators) start questioning the narrative; “COVID vaccines are safe and effective”

As of Nov 12, 2021 there have been 18,853 Deaths, 30,010 Permanent Disabilities and 658 Birth Defects following vaccination as reported though the HHS Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). You can click on the following link for verification as it is updated weekly:

I would like to call attention to the following website which was created by individuals who are pro-vaccine and took the recommended vaccines for COVID-19 but after experiencing serious injury they have been left to fend for themselves: (similar to the chronic Lyme patient population)




We are a large and ever growing group of Americans who were previously healthy and have been seriously injured by the COVID vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J as well as Astra Zeneca in the clinical trial stage in the United States).

We are pro-vaccine, pro-science and were excited for the opportunity to be vaccinated and to do our part in helping to end the pandemic.

We are completely independent of any other organization.


Vermont’s COVID Cases Despite Highest Vaccination Rate


At this point, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence showing the COVID shots are not working. What little protection you do get clearly wanes within a handful of months, and may leave you worse off than you were before. We’re seeing data to this effect from a number of different places.

In the U.S., we can now look at Vermont. [19] At nearly 72% vaccinated, it has the highest rate of “fully vaccinated” residents in the country, according to ABC News, [20] yet COVID cases are now suddenly surging to new heights.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show Vermont had the 12th highest COVID case rate in the nation as of November 9, 2021. Over the previous seven days, cases had increased by 42%. It couldn’t have been due to a surge in testing, though, as the weekly average of tests administered had only increased by 9% in that time.

What’s more, during that first week of November, the hospital admission rate for patients who were fully vaccinated increased by 8%, while the admission rate for those who were not fully vaccinated actually decreased by 15%.

Data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.

Keep in mind that you’re not considered “fully vaccinated” until two weeks after your second injection. If you got your second dose a week ago and end up in the hospital with COVID symptoms, you’re counted as unvaccinated. This gross manipulation of reality makes it very difficult to interpret the data, but even with this manipulation it is beyond obvious that the vaccines are failing.

Overall, the case rate in Vermont is FAR higher now than it as in the fall of 2020, when no one had gotten the “vaccine.” According to Vermont health commissioner Dr. Mark Levine, the surge is occurring primarily among unvaccinated people in their 20s and children aged 5 through 11 — a curious coincidence, seeing how the shots are just now being rolled out for 5- to 11-year-olds.

Levine blames the surge on the highly infectious delta variant, but delta has been around for months already. The first case of delta in Vermont was identified in mid-May 2021. [21] Surely, it wouldn’t have taken six months for this most-infectious of variants to make the rounds and cause an unprecedented spike?

Two clues are given by Levine, however, when he admits that a) Vermont has one of the lowest rates of natural immunity in the U.S. and b) protection is waning among those who got the COVID shot early to mid-year. Breakthrough cases among the fully vaccinated shot up 31% during the first week of November. [22]

Fully Vaxxed Are Nine Times More Likely To Be Hospitalized

Coincidentally, data from physician assistant Deborah Conrad, presented by attorney Aaron Siri [23] October 17, 2021, shows vaccinated people are nine times more likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated.

The key, however, was in what they counted as vaccinated. Rather than only including those who had gotten the shot two weeks or more before being hospitalized, they simply counted those who had one or more shots, regardless of when, as vaccinated. This gives us an honest accounting, finally! As explained by Siri: [24]

“A concerned Physician Assistant, Deborah Conrad, convinced her hospital to carefully track the COVID-19 vaccination status of every patient admitted to her hospital. The result is shocking.

As Ms. Conrad has detailed, her hospital serves a community in which less than 50% of the individuals were vaccinated for COVID-19 but yet, during the same time period, approximately 90% of the individuals admitted to her hospital were documented to have received this vaccine.

These patients were admitted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to COVID-19 infections. Even more troubling is that there were many individuals who were young, many who presented with unusual or unexpected health events, and many who were admitted months after vaccination.”

Despite these troubling findings, health authorities ignored Conrad when she reached out. In mid-July 2021, Siri’s law firm also sent formal letters to the CDC, the Health and Human Services Department and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Conrad’s behalf, [25] and those were ignored as well.

“This again highlights the importance of never permitting government coercion and mandates when it comes to medical procedures,” Siri writes.[26]

Now, one of the most shocking details gleaned from Conrad’s data collection, which Siri failed to make clear but Steve Kirsch highlights in a recent substack post is that: [27]

“The only way you can get those numbers is if vaccinated people are 9 times more likely to be hospitalized than unvaccinated. It is mathematically impossible to get to those numbers any other way. Period. Full stop. This is known as an ‘inconvenient truth.’”

Indeed, the more data we gain access to, the worse it looks for these COVID shots. Unfortunately, those who push them seem hell-bent on ignoring any and all data that don’t support their stance.

Worse, it seems data and statistics are being intentionally manipulated by our health authorities to present a false picture of safety and effectiveness. All such tactics are indefensible at this point, and people who believe the official narrative without doing their own research do so at their own risk.


Rep ******… The Tuttle family’s horrifying and disabling experience with Lyme disease has given us reason to question everything our public health officials are propagating as we have seen how persistent Lyme infection has been denied for three decades. Now the world is getting a first-hand look at what our public health officials are capable of when there is no oversight and no one is ever held accountable.

Respectfully submitted,

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH

Member of Gov Chris Sununu’s Lyme Disease Study Commission

References (see original article for HTML links)

  • 19. COVID modeling data November 9, 2021
  • 20. 22. ABC News November 12, 2021
  • 21. VT digger June 8, 2021
  • 23. 24. 26. Aaronsiri.substack October 17, 2021
  • 25. Siri Glimstad Letter to FDA, CDC, HHS July 19, 2021
  • 27. Stevekirsch.substack November 16, 2021

COVID-19 and ‘Conspiracy Theory’: Who Decides What’s ‘Misinformation’?

The media dismisses any questioning of the lockdown measures as “conspiracy theory,” but we are the final judge of how the authorities managed the COVID-19 response.

During this time of COVID-19, the term “conspiracy theory” has been bandied about too casually by mainstream media sources. We indeed live in an “age of misinformation,” a time when it is legitimately hard to tell what exactly is true and what is not. But during this time, how do we make sense of the non-stop flood of contradictory COVID-19 information? And what do we make of alleged COVID-19 conspiracies?

Seldom do the media acknowledge that “conspiracy theory” can become weaponized, the charge becoming a means to stifle free inquiry into a topic. Who decides between valid information versus misinformation? And who decides what distinguishes a conspiracy theory from real political or financial agenda?

The mainstream media, often acting in concert with business or government, have decided it is their responsibility to be the official purveyors of news, the anointed ones to tell you what is authoritative versus what is not; and they have decided to tell you what stories constitute conspiracy theories(See link for article)



Excellent read – highly recommend.

The author states there are important questions to be asked of each author or “authority” including:

What is a ‘conspiracy?’

To conspire means to “join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement.” These happen continually and the author mentions many that were investigated and exposed.

A conspiracy theory is a “theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as a result of a conspiracy.” Not a neutral label, this term can be weaponized to prevent investigation and free-speech by branding it as untrue or based on insufficient evidence, superstition, or prejudice. It functions as a form of character assassination to discredit dissenters. Power-holders weaponize the term to shape the narrative and resist opposition. BTW: Lyme/MSIDS has been widely shaped by power-holders who stifle legitimate scientific inquiry. The current narrative has been spun for over 40 years.

12 Questions to Help You Assess Claims of Conspiracy Theory

  • Are there any uses of logical fallacies or rhetorical devices present in defending the “official narrative”?
    • Ad hominem arguments: attacking the character, motives, or attributes of a person or group without attacking the substance of the logical argument.
    • Red herring/deflection: information that deliberately misleads or distracts
    • Strawman: distortion the dissenter’s position to give an impression of refuting it
    • Non-sequitur: stating a series of facts and then deriving a conclusion that does not follow the facts.
    • Cherry-picking: bringing up data which supports a particular position while ignoring contradictory data
    • Begging the question: presuming the conclusion to be true, instead of providing proof.
    • Appeal to authority: using an authority figure to claim truth without evidence for it.
    • Lie by omission: lying by either omitting certain facts or by failing to correct a misconception.
  • What are the assertions made in the article that the author assumes “every reasonable person must believe”?
    • One must distangle half-truths and assumptions, especially assumptions that everyone who is logical or reasonable should believe.
  • Who benefits from the official narrative?
    • It’s imperative to identify power-holders and interests to determine how they might benefit from the narrative.
  • How accurate is the portrayal of the alternative narrative? 
    • One trick deployed is to make the dominate narrative appear more favorable, and also to present the most extreme alternative to stop critical thinking and discussion.
  • Whose interests are harmed by the alternative narrative? Some useful questions to consider:
    • How large in dollars is the market relevant to the dominant players’ interests?
    • Does the alternative narrative damage any existing revenue lines of the existing players?
    • Does the alternative narrative change the environment in a way that would hurt the existing players?
    • Does the alternative narrative damage the ability of the existing players to influence society?
  • How credible is the alternative narrative?
    • You must examine the actual arguments/data for yourself. Weaponization works by convincing you that the probability of the alternative is so low it is unreasonable.
  • If the official narrative were untrue, what paradigms would this invalidate?
    • A paradigm is useful in clarifying reality, but it can blind us to observations that lie outside the paradigm’s explanatory realm.  Again, Lyme/MSIDS is a perfect example.
  • Is there a political or ideological agenda being served? If so, what is this agenda?
    • You must separate fact from opinion and be alert for ideological biases.  Mainstream media now is nothing more than editorializing.  Be alert for intimidation & bullying and scientism which promotes & over-glorifies science. Fauci’s statement that anyone who questions him is questioning science comes to mind – setting both himself and science up as gods who know far more than you do.
  • What financial interests or power agenda is served by those propagating the narrative, and how large are these incentives?
    • How does the narrative financially benefit or give power to those behind the narrative?
    • Find data on how large the financial interests are: i.e. the COVID shots have already made billions of dollars for pharmaceuticals, and so there is tremendous incentive to downplay risks and prevent inquiry into adverse events.
  • Is the burden of proof applied equally for both sides?
    • It is suspicious when one side states the other side is wrong without evidence. Carefully examine the burden of proof as well as cherry-picking data to justify the position.
  • What first-hand evidence do we have for both sides?
    • Consult the evidence and sources to determine if the logic is sound. Media will cite a source but misrepresent the meaning to further the narrative. For example, a New York Times article made a case for the flu vaccine but deliberately ignored the modest conclusions over efficacy by the Cochrane Collaboration.
  • How likely are “alternative paradigms” to be true?
    • When presented with two sides, ascertain whether the dominant paradigm explains all the observed phenomena.  If it doesn’t, the alternative must be considered and weighed.
The article then goes through some common COVID-19 conspiracies immediately refuted by main-stream media:
  • 5G networks are making people sick, not Coronavirus.
    • The Reuter article debunking this conspiracy uses a strawman argument by presenting the extreme position as a binary one: you either believe the deaths are from 5G or COVID-19, but not both. The discussion of 5G being responsible for COVID deaths misses the more fundamental question: Does 5G exposure have negative health effects? This is a legitimate question whose diminishment benefits the beneficiaries of 5G technology. The article assumes and uses the appeal to authorities and consensus to insist it is safe. We have every right to hold authorities to a higher safety demonstration as it affects our lives. The article digs into the other issues as well and is well worth reading.
  • COVID-19 Originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
    • Snopes presents a series of non-sequiturs that appear to be authoritative facts but have nothing to do with the lab-origin hypothesis’s veracity and only serve as distractions. It uses biased characterization on an interview between Dr. Joseph Mercola and lawyer Francis Boyle. Several ad hominem fallacies are used to discredit both these men.  It cites a Nature study and accompanying commentary by National Institute of Health director Francis Collins in which a different virus with a spike-binding protein adaption similar to the one used by SaRs-CoV-2 was found in Pangolins. Neither debunks the lab-origin hypothesis but merely presents another theory. There are lies of omission by failing to discuss material that would influence our judgment regarding what is plausible versus not. By cherry-picking facts and arguments, it influences the reader unfairly. They simply omit the gain-of-function research funded by the NIH on bats that was being done at the lab and that safety concerns were raised in 2018.  U.S. Right to Know reported that “a statement in The Lancet authored by 27 prominent public health scientists condemning ‘conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin’ was organized by employees of EcoHealth Alliance.” This seems to be a deliberate public relations scheme to draw attention away from the lab-origin hypothesis. Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID director, would benefit from this hypothesis as it draws attention away from his funding role of the GOF research and potential culpability in case of a lab release. Further, much evidence was given in the article connecting the military to ‘gain of function’ research demonstrating a vested interest, which was completely ignored by Snopes.
  • Chicago Tribune’s “No, COVID-19 vaccines don’t contain Satan’s microchips (and other scary conspiracy theories aren’t true either)”
    • They give strawman and weaponized arguments by presenting a series of extreme views on supposedly a minority of “anti-vaccine” groups that they mock, rather than actual concerns. Anti-vax, and anti-vaccine is using language and social pressure to create an us-versus-them mentality. “Satan’s microchip” is also weaponized language and an ad hominem fallacy to mock digital surveillance concerns over a very real Gates partnership with MIT to store vaccination records in a ‘quantum dot’ in the skin which encodes information that is stored. The novel mRNA technology that will utilize the human body’s own cells to develop the antigen has never been used in humans before and was developed faster than any other vaccine in history. This fact makes it more akin to gene therapy than a traditional vaccine. There has been no long term safety studies.  Experts have admitted there are unknown risks involved including autoimmunity. “Vaccine” manufacturers themselves warn that a certain subset of people will experience some adverse effects, including flu-like symptoms like muscle aches and fever. Other organizations have sounded a loud warning that the Chicago Tribune piece ignores, as well as the question of who decides if the risk/benefit calculation is worth it?  The Chicago Tribune has decided this question for the reader.

The article also gives a complete list of references at the end.

Fantastic read full of crucial information to understand.

%d bloggers like this: