top of page

COVID Cacophony: Swelling Inhumanity

Updated: Jun 16, 2021

British PM Boris Johnson greets French President Emmanuel Macron
"Foppish elbow greetings" - Image Source: Business Standard (

In my last article I pointed out that we can definitively prove there was an agenda, very early on, irrespective of the peripatetic stray bat, or the Wuhan lab experiment gone awry. And it is, as best I know, unanswerable on the face of it. I have presented it far and wide, and it just reeks to high heaven and everywhere in between.

In a nutshell, when the extrapolations of epic, epochal plague were being trotted out, and massive shutdowns of society and livelihood and rights were being feverishly alighted upon, there were a large number of eminent scientists who pointed out that they believed, for a variety of reasons, the extrapolations were wrong, that doomsday was not nigh,

that we would cause more crippling harm through our response than via the pathogen.

And their roster, and credentials, from the US to Europe and beyond, Nobel prize winners, eminent meta-analysts, globally renowned epidemiologists and virologists, had such breadth and gravitas, you simply could not ignore them. Click here for a partial list.

Moreover, they were bringing potentially world rescuing news, this should have been rainwater in a desert, as I wrote, literal manna from heaven. And we should have hungrily taken in their evidence, their lab trials, their presentation of data and analysis, opened up the pandemic task forces to multiple views. We would surely have been keen to test propositions dispassionately, to ask why we were suddenly contradicting all the public health guidance we had through to 2020 on no new science or research, but just grandiloquent assertion?

And when anyone, no matter how august, suggested a view that we could manage the pathogen, that it was not uniquely lethal (on the numbers, it is demonstrably not), that completely shutting down is not needed (Sweden, Bulgaria, a growing number of US States, early on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship, all have conclusively shown that), they were literally deplatformed, shamed, attacked, virulently shunned.

This was a “pre-set reflex” when they were bringing potential deliverance, and we had no facts at that time on which to doubt them. Where did the gag reflex come from? If these immensely credentialed and hugely eminent people were suspected of having a decent shot at being right (as they have overwhelmingly now shown to be) then the only explanation is that already ingrained and in place, there was an almost Pavlovian rejection of any encouraging alternative narratives.

Rationally if I tell you, based on “models,” that there will be mass death and the only way to avert it, is destroying our societies and economies and ways of life, and someone exceptionally credible – in fact a raft of such people – say,

“No, I don’t think so, I can demonstrate saner alternatives, and demonstrate why we’re over-reacting,”

surely, we’d all trip over ourselves to give them a hearing.

Instead, we padlocked social media, chased them out of the public square, and derided their presumption in not helping us to gorge on the panic porn or genuflect to dismantling life on the planet as we knew it. Poverty, hunger, a mushrooming multitude of deaths in the pipeline from deferred care, all were somehow far more welcome? And the same types of voices were shunned everywhere, a macabre global choreography.

And this then also happened to advocates of using off label, repurposed drugs for early or even preventive treatment once we learned the illness was “biphasic” (more below). So, the evangel became “no treatment” until patients are hospitalized needing emergency care (these were the actual instructions given to doctors).

That position was taken, with no explanation, for the first time we know of in modern medical history. In the past, presented with sick patients, doctors treated them, with everything they had available, and thereby gained experience, and insight and “best practice.” Here, as Dr. Peter McCullough calls it, we had “therapeutic nihilism” (listen to podcast).

So, there was a clear agenda. Rational people don’t shun early treatment if seeking to protect people. And we certainly with some cost-benefit calculus, listen with desperate attention, welcome the counsel of established medical sages, rather than flee from their input and seek to stamp out their balancing and restorative ideas through exclusion and by applying muffling commercial and market influence.

Coming to Now

Well, it’s not a pretty picture. We see those unaccountable intellectual daffodils, our global “leaders” strutting and fretting their G-7 hours upon the stage, truly signifying nothing. Foppish elbow greetings, and later, photos showing them unmasked, gleefully intimate, highlighting the cynical buffoonery of the whole thing.

Having failed to quell the pandemic (or rather,”test-demic”), having undermined the world, what are these clowns strutting about? If we have devolved to the level of being misled by this parody of leadership, this cynical manipulative chicanery, possibly we deserve the disaster we’ve been invited to acquiesce to.

Civil rights are smoldering there all around them. What else have they championed? Insulting stupid cloth masks to arrest far too small viral particles when no one, if vaguely sane, would use them for asbestos or anthrax with larger particles. Oh, and locking up the healthy, ordering you to destroy your business, imperiling our culture, our arts, centuries of heritage and tradition and trajectory over a median influenza strain (when looking at age adjusted mortality, and global IFR, reported to be about 0.15% from Stanford, peer reviewed, and even on the WHO website).

As more than one commentator said, watching these preening oafs in front of the shore,

“Where’s a good tidal wave when you need one?”

In the meantime, their prime agenda, get everyone jabbed, is doggedly, manically pursued. Clearly, it’s not about COVID which has sputtered rather than surged overall, and even in India was rendered “temporarily terrifying” by ignoring small matters, like their population size. And India’s deaths per million are still about 1/7th those of the EU and US.

When you have such a mildly lethal, highly age stratified illness, you have to wonder what’s driving this relentless push for “vaccination.”

Oh Those Deaths and Adverse Effects

What would you say if I mentioned that evidence is clear that the just under 5,000 deaths on the US adverse effects database, VAERS, is more than dated, troubling as that number already is, being substantially more than were lost on 9/11? There are likely 5x those deaths.

If we look at the recent period and focus on two forms of fatalities: “Influenza and Pneumonia” (called J09-J18) and “Symptoms, signs and abnormal clinical and laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified” (R00-R99), since the vaccine rollout, there has been a significantly increased number of deaths from the latter. For R00-R94 (a subset) are essentially cases for which no specific diagnosis can be made, symptoms were transient, and causes could not be determined, no precise diagnosis was available, and/or various symptoms were present that represent important medical problems in their own right.”

The deaths associated with R00-R94 are 25,800 above the norm since February.

For VAERS, we directly have 4,946 associated deaths. This is known to be a heavy undercount, as this reporting is a detailed affair and onerous for doctors to input. It therefore tends to report only between 1-20% of the actual adverse events or deaths, a chilling fraction.

So, the extra numbers are either reflective of the undercount, or some mysterious new set of strictures for tallying deaths under this coding continuum. Serial entrepreneur, medical philanthropist and foe of mindless vaccinating (given evident treatment alternatives in particular), Steve Kirsch (listen to podcast) says he is privy to an inside source confirming these as vaccine deaths, and that the information is “hiding in plain sight.” We look forward to the indicated revelation. There are suggestions that even more deaths may be sequestered in the data. Regardless though, the anomaly is enough to make you more than pause.

Adam Gaertner indicates he received a message from someone who was prescribed, by a Telemed doctor, ivermectin for prophylaxis. The pharmacy CVS refused, saying they needed a doctor’s diagnosis, and it couldn’t be for COVID! So, this person switched to Walgreens. There the request was honored, and the pharmacist whispered,

“This doctor is very brave. Many are losing their jobs or afraid to lose them if they prescribed this. This one is a hero.”

So Twitter and YouTube decide who and what you hear, and pharmacists overrule a doctor’s prescription because it clashes with political orthodoxy, and even a sovereign nation (Norway) that questions a vaccine, gets deplatformed (by Twitter when expressing disquiet about the safety of AstraZeneca). Is this vaguely normal if this were truly a “vaccine” and not tarted up experimental gene therapy, rushed through with no animal trials, extremely skewed and nominal human trials, and where its overlords, with bedlam and pandemonium emerging re results, are feverishly trying to fulfill some “mission”, some deranged profit goal or something else, before our gullibility finally runs out?

India reports villagers en masse, frantically leaping into the river to evade police officials seeking to “jab” them at all costs. Another village in India had its electricity shut down until they agreed to vaccinate. In the Punjab, there is a recommendation of blocking SIM cards of those who don’t get vaccinated! This is surreal. And it’s certainly not all in the developing world either.

CNBC in the US reports that “free” with your jab variously: doughnuts, marijuana, beer, hamburgers, lottery tickets, dalliances via dating sites. Truly, this seems like black comedy, except we’ve enabled it, and keep sniveling along.

In Canada, ice cream for kids if they take a jab, police positioned to ensure parents don’t “interfere.” Really? North Carolina indicates the age of 12 as the age of “consent” for vaccination. Children are not even mildly at real risk, they are more at risk from flu. Is North Carolina going to allow them to smoke, drink, vote, have consensual sex, since they can, on a basis they surely cannot understand anywhere close to “informed” consent, have experimental treatments injected into their body with unknown short term, middle term or long-term impact? And knowing kids are not vectors of transmission, which lunatic considers this a “triumph?” It’s gaping at us. Why are citizens not demanding to know where the desperation to do this is coming from, as the nominal nature of child mortality from C-19 is so clear? It’s surely not from data or public health considerations.

Abu Dhabi in the UAE makes vaccination part of their “Green Pass” (Israel has mercifully ditched theirs), by which you can access “life” essentially… malls, gyms, hotels, restaurants, cafes and bars, supermarkets, public parks and beaches (there is not one recorded case of outdoor transmission, even the US CDC concedes it’s less than 1%!), entertainment centers, cinemas and museums. And this while flagrantly ignoring the outpouring of negative effects being reported around the world. How do you do that? Surely you either say,

“I discount all those reports.”

Or you say,

“I don’t care, we want the symbolism, and the hell with the results.”


And pictures of people emerging, of travel from that jurisdiction, folks inhaling their own waste (masking) pointlessly, jabbed, PCR gloss tested, all shows that panic is the new theology and ignoring facts and enshrining paranoia, with as much intrusion into personal rights as possible, the playbook of choice.

Blatant Smearing of the Truth

At times with great enthusiasm, we share what seems self-evident, a smoking gun, a glaring fact, an incontestable bit of breaking news. And we are met with chagrin, or denial, or nit-picking of irrelevancies, or invincible ignorance. Here is a bit of my exchange with a highly experienced epidemiologist.

Upon sending him Dr. Peter McCullough’s powerful and unforgettable testimony before the Texas Senate (a mere 28 minutes of edifying viewing), he said,

“There is no cure for COVID.”

I told him as per the recovery statistics of more people than I could recount,

whether or not there is a “cure” or not, there are certainly “treatments.”

He said there was no evidence. I said there were multiple peer reviewed articles. He said he discounted those, as he and three peers could do a peer review. I pointed out some of these papers had 57 leading doctors as co-authors and were in the top medical journals. He said he needed multiple trials. I pointed out that Penicillin had never had randomized trails, but it worked, and so they kept using it. He sniffled and kept quiet. I said there were in fact multiple randomized trials for some of the early treatment drugs and I would get them to him.

He then said America had flopped on this front, and why should he take tuition from there? I mentioned that Dr. McCullough and others like him, have been fighting the very intransigence and evidence avoidance that led to the US debacle, and they had helped to turn the tide ahead of any alleged vaccination impacts (fortunately he was anti-mask and vaccine, and pro prevention, which I think to him was “stay away and wash hands”). So, they were railing against the lack of early treatment in the US, the lack of any protocol other than “don’t treat, and we’ll see them in emergency care if we must.”

And, as mentioned, this is completely at odds with how any other disease is tackled. Every other malady, we aim to treat as early as we can.

He then said, he’d need proof of these “medicines.” I told him these were off label, repurposed drugs, the cheapest, safest remedy available, and various protocols have various demonstrated case results, but that regardless it is a “biphasic” disease. And so anti-virals are needed in week one, then something to deal with inflammation, and if it gets there, a way to attack thrombosis. And doctors deal with each of these already, and so doing so, and finding what works is not only sane, but humane. But doing nothing goes against the grain of medical practice surely.

He paused and asked me if I wanted to write a paper together! He would do prevention, and I could compile something on preventive and early treatment (which happily, by then, somehow shimmered into existence from being non-existent to him). I have to give him credit, he said,

“We must all be open beyond our biases.”

Oh, were that only the case.

Doing the rounds in East Asia, a less engaging “expert” epidemiologist at a National Center of Infectious Diseases no less, was railing against colleagues who had insightfully raised alarms about the vaccines. He claims these were based on “dubious international experts and research.” Other than disagreeing with his own biases, what rendered them “dubious” we never learn.

He is also alarmed by the sane advice proffered not to vaccinate the young by his colleagues, who also extolled the benefits of a medically endorsed outpatient early and preventive treatment approach focusing on the remarkable and amply documented benefits of Ivermectin (huge, documented successes in Slovakia, Mexico, India, Bangladesh, parts of the US and more).

This expert writes that while the younger people don’t have severe infections, they can infect others. This flies in the face of numerous highly credible studies about asymptomatic transmission. Or if the younger are actively symptomatic, they can be treated, and since it’s airborne, readily provided well ventilated areas or outdoor clinics or similar approaches. The very young have not been found to pass on the transmission, not one recorded instance to teachers in schools is documented.

He says “a study in Britain” showed Pfizer and AstraZeneca reduced household transmission by 50 to 60%. Which study? Why does he never name it? And if it did, with cascading adverse effects, what is the trade-off? And how long lasting is it, as these “vaccines” admit to focusing on reducing the severity of symptoms or making it less likely the infection graduates to becoming serious, versus transmissibility. Of the 42 in the UK reported as of June 13th, to have succumbed to the Delta variant (please note, India’s overall numbers continue to plunge, despite being the source of said variant), roughly 30% were already vaccinated. So even the protection seems inconclusive.

He claims there is a “wealth of data” on safety from various jurisdictions. These remain unspecified. And they are being hotly contested. One of those cited jurisdictions, Israel, has happily expressed second thoughts about vaccinating the very young. A House of Commons Committee in the UK has produced a conclusion not to proceed with “vaccine passports” on numerous grounds, strenuously and unambiguously. The CDC just admitted the link to heart complications from the vaccines, particularly in the young, is greater than they earlier had thought (words fail, as the data was shrieking from the rooftops).

In a dizzying eruption of misinformation, he next states that these dissenting doctors had referenced a study as to how RNA from the C-19 virus could be integrated into cells and said this had been debunked. There are numerous studies, as well as a whistleblower who confirms from evidence from a study the Japanese commissioned, pointing out that the spike proteins (toxic in themselves) don’t stay localized and go into the bloodstream and organs. In fact, the originator of the mRNA technology, Robert Malone, has said this happens, and of course was unanticipated, and is a disaster. Crowning everything is the first, as best I know, autopsy done on a fully vaccinated person, which showed viral RNA found in every organ of the body! This is fully reported on in So, either the vaccine didn’t work, or opened the doors itself!

Our confounded expert then completely falls through the rabbit hole of outright nonsense by saying there aren’t enough trials re Ivermectin or adequate information re Fluvoxamine. There are over 15 randomized trials re Ivermectin already available just in the American Journal of Therapeutics, peer reviewed, and that is just one source. Against that he cites one “dormitory” local study in his jurisdiction which claims no results. However, we have no references, no chance to assess the protocols, against bulging coffers of positive data and an upcoming meta-analysis on Ivermectin’s remarkable impact, on the verge of publication as I write.

The evidence on Fluvoxamine in India and elsewhere is compelling but could be construed as more observational. Nevertheless, if one applied the standard applied to Penicillin, it would certainly fly. Over 850 patients have been treated for COVID, not one study shows anything but dramatic improvement, especially for early-stage use. Both drugs have a long safety record, and now with COVID, “do no harm” is amply satisfied. This contrasts vividly with the generic ramblings of this expert,

sadly indicative of the rhetorical sleight of mind being used to undermine options that perform better than the vaccines, are far more affordable, and have none of the adverse impacts.

However, additions to the yacht collection are not fostered by them.

What Have We Done?

We all bemoan the loss of small businesses, decimated globally by this assault on humanity. And we particularly pine for those that are colorful, distinctive, iconic, artisanal, full of spunk and verve and life. The bakery in Oxford’s pointlessly shuttered Covered Market (outdoor, well ventilated) reported by Peter Hitchens (I remember it well, and the sights and aromas that attended it). Beloved restaurants, bookstores (already besieged prior), places to commune and reminisce and recall things that made us smile. The little tailor’s shop, the eccentric place with curios, a place for breakfast with intriguing regulars who caught up on life. How can we measure what Hitchens rightly alludes to as “irrecoverable losses?”

And we all mulishly went along with this, lemming like,

never asking by what right our rights were so callously, casually and endlessly stripped from us?

And we must beware being “grateful” for any restoration, as if the return of what is unalienably ours as per the founders of that glorious experiment circa 1776, is a matter for gratitude to some temporal, thieving autocracy. Surely instead, gratitude is owed for the ineffable blessings of life, the dignity that attends human autonomy and grace.

You see we were tutored, and lured, and mesmerized into following the pack, herded commercially and via pop culture into moving to the pied piper’s inducements, rather than listening for a different drumbeat, to rhythms that beguile and evoke and enlarge. Such gifts, which while having a community dimension, are also intensely private. Truly, it seems we have given our hearts away indeed, and our minds with them. And we must, desperately, genuinely, and with conviction, relocate them, revive them, and animate them anew.

We need passion to resist such encroachment, and clarity and intelligence to face the challenges before us. We need to do so more sanely, as well as bravely, with intellect as well as imagination. As in so much art, so too the art of life, the Dionysian and the Apollonian need each other for sharp relief. So we celebrate what is beautiful while crafting real solutions for our challenges, and avenues for our visions, always threading the needle, or so we hope, between rationality and passion.

In a small South Asian island state, millions are spent each month on the chimeric PCR testing of the healthy, while national hospitals don’t have gauze or ointment, and the poor have to go loan sharks not even to feed their family, but as I heard, for a wife to get dressings for her husband’s wounds and medicines for him, before she carries him through the hospital; this frail, tender, vessel of love, because wheelchairs cannot be provided given the agonizing charade of this “public health” emergency.

At the other end of the spectrum, equally shattering, world renowned epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff recounts the tale of a colleague who did not receive early treatment at age 79 for COVID. Had such a protocol been there as you would expect it to be, on the results we can see when these are applied, he may well not have worsened, gone to hospital and died. His chances would have improved we know now by close to 85%. His wife, whose cancer screenings and treatment were also foregone, deferred too long due to our ignoring any other source of harm than one hyped up virus, also passed away. That too, arguably was potentially avoidable, or at least measurably less likely to have gone that way. And there we have the two prongs of this insanity, in a way, encapsulated.

So, to avoid repeating history by refusing to study it, just four things for us to grapple with and grow from:

  1. Let us never allow decisions to be foisted upon us without knowing what the cost-benefit implications will be, and how brakes can be applied when something is clearly beyond its mandate and no longer serving us or our neighbors or life.

  2. Let’s ask, by what right are people who we have elected to be custodians of our rights, who are endowed with power allegedly by us, holding us captive, throwing us in detention camps, keeping our children bereft of education, muzzling our faces, refusing us treatments we wish, and dictating the life we are allowed to lead? Surely, we must be incensed and outraged, and surely we need to stop primly asking for “permission.”

  3. We have to stop the Stockholm Syndrome madness of falling in love with our captivity. Time to step out. Time to flex our aptitudes and attitudes before truly they atrophy and wither and are replaced by truly entrenched, unthinking compliance.

  4. “Nondeath” is not life. Life is an eruption of who we are and who we might be. It is extending ourselves, sometimes without abandon, and letting laughter, mirth and shared meaning, and with them good dollops of zeal and courage, and purposeful intention, light our way.


Some of the Experts Who Questioned the Coronavirus Panic: We Should have Listened and Didn't...

(with thanks to Off-Guardian for having shared many of their views)

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history. Dr. Bhakdi has published a book on the coronavirus crisis. Corona: False Alarm, is available in English and German from all major book sellers.

Dr. Anders Tegnell is a Swedish physician and civil servant who has been State Epidemiologist of the Public Health Agency of Sweden since 2013. Dr. Tegnell graduated from medical school in 1985, specializing in infectious disease. He later obtained a PhD in Medical Science from Linkoping University in 2003 and an MSc in 2004.

Dr. Pablo Goldschmidt is an Argentine-French virologist specializing in tropical diseases, and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology at the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris. He is a graduate of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry of the University of Buenos Aires and Faculty of Medicine of the Hospital Center of Pitie-Salpetriere, Paris.

Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya are professors of medicine and public health at Stanford University.

Dr. Tom Jefferson is a British epidemiologist, based in Rome. He works for the Cochrane Collaboration, where he is an author and editor of the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, as well as part of four other Cochrane groups. He is also an advisor to the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services.

Dr. Michael Levitt is Professor of biochemistry at Stanford University. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS), a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems.

German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine is an association of German scientists, researchers and medical professionals. The network was founded in 2000 to disseminate and further develop concepts and methods of evidence-based and patient-oriented medicine in practice, teaching and research, and today has around 1000 members.

Dr. Richard Schabas is the former Chief Medical Officer of Ontario, Medical Officer of Hastings and Prince Edward Public Health and Chief of Staff at York Central Hospital. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specializing in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

Dr. Joel Kettner is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

Dr. John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

Dr. Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980's presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

Dr. Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specializing in Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery is a German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research at Bonn University.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta et al. are an Oxford-based research team constructing an epidemiological model for the coronavirus outbreak. Dr. Gupta is a Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford with an interest in infectious disease agents that are responsible for malaria, HIV, influenza and bacterial meningitis. She is a recipient of the Sahitya Akademi Award, the Scientific Medal by the Zoological Society of London and the Royal Society Rosalind Franklin Award for her scientific research.

Dr. Yanis Roussel et. al. - A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Mediterranee Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the 'Investments for the Future' programme.

Dr David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center.

Dr. Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

Dr. Dolores Cahill is an Irish research scientist specializing in immunology and oncology, and professor of Translational Science at the University College Dublin School of Medicine. She has been a science advisor for three national governments – Ireland, Sweden and Germany – and is the Vice Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Innovative Medicine Initiative. She has also been asked to resign from her post at the IMI due to her stance on COVID-19.

Prof Carl Heneghan is a British general practitioner physician, director of the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and a Fellow of Kellogg College. He is also Editor-in-Chief of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. He is one of the founders of AllTrials, an international initiative calling for all studies to be published, and their results reported.

Dr. Karol Sikora is a British physician specializing in oncology and professor of Medicine at the University of Buckingham. He is a founder and medical director of Rutherford Health, a company providing proton therapy services, the former director of the World Health Organization Cancer Program and Director of Medical Oncology at the Bahamas Cancer Centre.

Dr. Michael Yeadon is a British doctor and research scientist, the former chief science officer with Pfizer, and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.

Dr. Jean-Francois Toussaint is a French doctor and professor of physiology at the Universite Paris-Descartes. He is also director of the Institute for Biomedical Research and Sports Epidemiology (IRMES) and a former member of the High Council of Public Health.

Dr. Priyad Ariyaratnam is a British surgeon, medical researcher and NIHR Clinical Lecturer and Speciality Registrar in Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Hull York Medical School.

Dr. Martin Feeley is an Irish physician and former Senior Doctor with Ireland's Health Service Executive and clinical director of the Dublin Midlands Hospital Group.

Dr. Beda M. Stadler is a Swiss molecular biologist and former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern. Stadler carried out basic research in the field of allergology and autoimmunity and applied research for the production of recombinant human or artificial antibodies.

Dr. Stefan Hockertz is a German researcher in the field of biology, biotechnology and pharmacology, and a former professor of toxicology, pharmacology and molecular immunotoxicology the University of Hamburg, as well as member of the Fraunhofer working group for toxicology and environmental medicine.

Docs4OpenDebate is a collection of healthcare workers based in Belgium. Last month they posted an open letter to the Belgian government demanding an end to lockdown, in that time the letter has accrued over 13,000 signatures – 561 one of whom are medical doctors. Their inclusion could justifiably turn this from "10 Experts" into "570 experts", but that feels like overkill.

Dr. John Lee is an English consultant histopathologist at Rotherham General Hospital and formerly clinical professor of pathology at Hull York Medical School. He is most notable to the wider public as co-presenter (with Gunther von Hagens) of Anatomy for Beginners (screened in the UK on Channel 4 in 2005), Autopsy: Life and Death (Channel 4, 2006) and Autopsy: Emergency Room (Channel 4, 2007).

Dr. John Oxford is an English virologist and Professor at Queen Mary, University of London. He is a leading expert on influenza, including bird flu and the 1918 Spanish Influenza, and HIV/AIDS.

Prof Knut M. Wittkowski is a German-American researcher and professor of epidemiology. He worked for 15 years on the Epidemiology of HIV before heading for 20 years the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University, New York.

Dr. Klaus Puschel is a German forensic pathologist and former professor of forensics at Essen University and current director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. He has worked on many noteworthy autopsies, as well as high-profile forensic archaeological studies.

Dr. Alexander Kekule is a German doctor and biochemist. He has held the Chair for Medical Microbiology and Virology at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg since 1999 and is the current Director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the University Hospital Halle.

Dr. Claus Kohnlein is a German Internist based in Kiel and co-author of the book Virus Mania.

Dr. Gerard Krause is head of the Department for Epidemiology at the Helmholtz Centre for Infection in Braunschweig, director of the Institute for Infectious Disease Epidemiology at TWINCORE in Hannover and Chair of the PhD Program Epidemiology at the Hannover Medical School. He also coordinates the Translational Infrastructure Epidemiology at the German Centre for Infection Research (DZIF).

Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer is a German psychologist, professor of psychology and Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin.

Dr. Karin Molling is a German virologist whose research focused on retroviruses, particularly human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). She was a full professor and director of the Institute of Medical Virology at the University of Zurich from 1993 until her retirement in 2008 and received multiple honors and awards for her work.

Recent Posts

See All

A Crisis of Confidence

Yes, it was recently that time of year, when corporate chieftains, policymakers, NGO “warriors”, so-called journalists, and self-styled intellectuals went invading the Swiss Alps for the 54th annual m

The Morning After

So, here we are, in the aftermath of aftermaths. A world ruptured. The UK in an economic tailspin. The US dealing with public health meltdowns as mRNA “vaccines” reveal their dangerous inefficacy. Eur

bottom of page