Updated: Sep 19, 2021
Leaders worldwide are saying they would like to have everyone ‘immunized tomorrow’ for COVID-19.
Here’s the simple question, as Emma McArthur so aptly put it,
“Please explain how people can be ‘immunized’ with a 'leaky vaccine' that apparently neither prevents infection nor transmission?
This flaw in the ‘vaccine solution’ to COVID-19 was recently acknowledged by Professor Andrew Pollard in the United Kingdom, who stated that reaching the herd immunity threshold with vaccination was ‘mythical' because the vaccines are not stopping transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Professor Pollard is the Chief Investigator on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials, and Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.”
Why have people across the world had futures ransomed and rights and liberties invaded and undermined by works of non-scientific fiction – beginning with the infamous ‘Report 9’ from Professor Neil Ferguson et al at Imperial College, London, in March 2020? Professor Ferguson’s reputation for lavish error and unhinged risk extrapolation pre-dates COVID-19. Yet, inaccuracy clearly not being a disqualifier in government circles, his “counsel” keeps being broadcast, a travesty when applied in lieu of data-based science.
Why are governments continuing to follow these models in the face of evidence that clearly demonstrates why we should not use guesswork as the main driver for public health policy? Emma McArthur again,
“As eminent “modelers” (Doherty) for example admit themselves in a recent press conference, these models contain ‘thought experiments’, they are ‘scenarios not predictions’ and ‘deliberately quite artificial’.”
But such demonstrably spurious modeling has been used around the world to promote damaging suppression strategies, then dangling a ‘vaccine solution’ as the only way out. This was done without addressing the evident potential for harm that could clearly flow from these policies, as admitted by Ferguson's team at Imperial College, who stated:
"We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here [mitigation or suppression], except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term."
Comparing “suppression” in China with South Korea is fanciful to say the least. The latter stayed largely open, and despite some manic contact tracing, in terms of “stringency” has had a functioning economy and society, and only targeted, short, sharp shutdowns. As for China, what the case actually is, is unclear. They allege virtually no deaths in Shanghai, despite its teeming population. And there was clearly no Wuhan-like (or the “optical” Wuhan anyway) mass shutdown of Shanghai for months or Beijing, and somehow the pathogen skirted them? Or as I’ve written before, setting their PCR test setting at 25 (where it best belongs) and insisting on two symptoms for COVID besides, may have taken care of that for them (we heard this report from a Chinese scientist, and this was relayed to me by Nick Hudson of PANDA).
The Imperial quackery concludes with the following:
‘However, we emphasize that is [sic] not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear.’
Unclear? You don’t say? While flicking this at us as a “thought experiment”, millions and billions of citizens around the world have been viscerally, literally held hostage. It is hard to envisage a greater impact on life, civil rights, autonomy, self-expression, or a more disgraceful rewriting of a social contract between government and citizens that in the Western world began with Magna Carta and blossomed so bountifully in1776, “we hold these truths to be self-evident…”
And a government’s right to govern there was clearly affirmed as only being validated by protecting and furthering those core human rights in fact and by action, not just by empty proclamation. How tragically quaint that sounds today.
How have we been brought to the brink of civilizational collapse, all the while having such “pseudo-science” brandished at us?
Data Over Ideology
At times it seems we are listening to two sets of scientific guidance. Esteemed people tell us to lock up, mask up, get jabbed, and throw out extrapolatory numbers forecasting tens of thousands of deaths as if truly the black plague has come calling. And it hasn’t. Remember those largely open jurisdictions, much of Asia and Africa, they prove otherwise. Even if there is underreporting in some of those areas, there aren’t tens of thousands, much less hundreds of thousands of corpses, stealthily stockpiled somewhere. The suggestion is blatant nonsense.
The reason for the “disconnect” is all the above prescriptions come from modeling, almost all of which has been incorrect. Remember all the “experts” who assured that the fall of Baghdad would lead to an “Arab Spring?” Forgetting the disorder, the chaos, the lack of any institutions left in place to run a society, and disenfranchised people with weapons for hire. Beware models. Someone on the ground, could have, in fact tried to, advise otherwise. They were swatted aside for well-paid experts who fed the narrative.
So, if you consult COVID “data” there is really no debate. And I humbly suggest, it is high time we forget pedigree of where the advice comes from, and ask what data it is anchored in. And refuse generics, insist on specifics.
Here are just a smattering of things that “ideology” got wrong, and we have the data to prove it:
Pre-immunity and whether everyone is equally at risk
Secondary attack rate, from a JAMA meta-analysis, until the more infectious Delta variant, in households with an infected member was about 17% only. C-19 has been circulating since 2019, clearly many more than we knew were infected, recovered, immune. Therefore, the modeling expectations would be dramatically off on this basis, as well based on cross-immunity from other linked illnesses which have been demonstrated. T-cell reactivity has been shown.
Therefore the “susceptible” part of the population already comes down by 30% or more. And then, we find, 99% recovery below 65 without comorbidities. Hence, data shows us a vastly age stratified vulnerability. The overwhelming majority recover. So, from data, that has to be our starting point. Add vastly effective early treatments, and the pendulum swings very favorably indeed.
In addition to age, we have other compounding factors: obesity, seasonal fluctuations like Vitamin D, diabetes, anxiety (as per the US CDC, this is the second greatest comorbidity and we’ve been pumping panic for 2 years!).
The illogic of the modelers is,
“Our model predictions of dire destruction have not happened. Ergo, it’s working!”
That’s why those jurisdictions that did not follow their guidelines, and are flourishing, have to be consulted. Bulgaria in the spring with teeming sporting events, Mexico using Ivermectin showing up WHO nostrums, India with natural immunity (seroprevalence study by the Indian government shows close to 70% antibodies) with a fraction of deaths per million compared to the EU and US, even in the UK with Wimbledon and similar events and no related surges, more surges now among the vaccinated there instead. This is data to sift, and to struggle with, and to examine. It’s not clean, and it’s certainly not prophetic as per these hapless models.
Actually, all the models until 2019 based on empirical, peer reviewed studies said they don’t work with respiratory viruses. Given the size of the COVID particles, it is like a garden fence trying to keep out mosquitoes. A recent Bangladeshi study flailed in trying to establish any meaningful benefit. Last year’s randomized Danish trial essentially showed cloth masks to be useless and surgical masks not that much more effective. And anyway, being an airborne pathogen, and there being clear openings in the masks, access to eyes, in addition to all the contagion the masks gather, it is being in well ventilated space, without undue congestion that is key, not stifling oxygen flow and muzzling people.
First waves were underestimated, leading us to exaggerate the infection fatality rate, due to undertesting. While it made sense to focus on the highly symptomatic, taking that as a threshold for vulnerability across-the-board, made little sense. Recent WHO and other peer reviewed seroprevalence studies puts the infection fatality rate at a very modest 0.23% to 0.15%.
Also, the death certificate “creative accounting” makes it obscure, who died “with” as opposed to actually “from” COVID. When Sweden was hard hit with its nursing home error, up to mid November 2020, “C-19” deaths were indicated as 6,410, but “excess mortality” over this period was only 1,479, about 23% of that. In many South Asian countries, the COVID related deaths without major comorbidities involved seem to be about 17% as per government figures earlier released. That changes the calculus dramatically when you already don’t have excess mortality, as this region doesn’t, much to the sputtering outrage of the “modelers”.
Subsequent waves were then inflated due to over-testing via an unreliable test, as countries conveniently, for the “narrative,” redefined “cases” to no longer require any clinical criteria, no symptoms for the first time in history. And enter the mass distortionist, the PCR test, whose own paperwork says it is not for diagnosis, never had an EUA for testing the asymptomatic, and which only amplifies a part of the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA sequence.
So, it picks up “fragments” and “debris” and even “residue” and cannot confirm “live” infectiousness. As the “cycle threshold” or Ct value goes up, meaning greater amplification needed to detect, the possibility of “false positives” skyrockets, and above 30, it may be as high as 85% to 90% false positives as per leading studies. The standard recommended by Harvard and acknowledged by WHO is 28 or below. Despite this, assays are sometimes run up to 40 cycles or more, in which case we could have asymptomatic, non-infectious, immune, and yet be tallied as a “new case.” Mass testing of the healthy is virtually a first in virological and epidemiological circles, and offers little other than confusion and panic.
Most modelers eschew seasonality saying the epidemic C-19 outbreaks across multiple regions over the summer period render that moot. But those looking at data, point out, even in warmer climes, seasonal fluctuations are seen. And even if seasonality is not the complete explanation, it is certainly not ruled out as a contributing factor. Other factors are delayed infections due to lockdowns, variants that migrate at a certain time, or indeed surges from mass vaccination as have been seen in Seychelles, UK, Israel and now Mongolia. Humidity and sunlight have been repeatedly shown to be factors, and Vitamin D3 deficiency has been confirmed in numerous meta-analyses and trials to be associated with infection and adverse outcomes.
Those looking at data, point out that as per the Oxford Stringency Index, there is an inverse relationship between severity of such measures and positive health and mortality outcomes. And those not deploying these, fared no worse, in many cases better. Also, they point out the precautionary principle, collateral damage and comparative costs and impact have not been assessed. All the world cannot rationally or even ethically revolve around a pathogen that at the height of its novelty in 2020 was not anywhere among the top 10 causes of mortality. And almost half the deaths ascribed to it, came from care homes, or homes, whereas the impact from deferred or neglected care or the millions plunged into poverty from lockdowns is hard to even fathom. And the “vaccines” don’t immunize, so while their therapeutic benefit for the vulnerable is welcome, the ROI is far from clear.
The cure truly may be worse than the disease with delayed cancer care, mental health meltdowns, elderly care, destroyed education, teen suicides, domestic violence, shattering of livelihoods and more.
If you begin from a pharma led economic model that is fixated on universal vaccination, then naturally available, cheap, efficacious and safe therapeutics are a mortal threat. Though monoclonal antibodies are FDA approved, they lie largely unused in the US, though they can stave off C-19 if applied early. The ludicrous attempt to demonize HCQ and Ivermectin, both hyperbolic attack campaigns evaporate upon the slightest inspection (fraudulent articles in Lancet and Rolling Stone come to mind), show the sheer terror here. And now the pharma companies are working on their own anti-virals, clearly confessing that 3-4 annual booster shots won’t fly.
And as Professor Harvey Risch of Yale mentioned in a recent discussion what we are being vaccinated with, relative to emerging variants, is the equivalent of last year’s flu shot. Quite a global campaign!
“Save the world by taking last year’s flu shot!”
Desperate attempts to rewrite “immunity” by WHO are now amply discredited, as the US CDC scampered to change the very definition of “vaccine” a week back from something that confers “immunity” to something that provides “protection.” When you next eat a papaya, remember you may be “vaccinating” yourself. I exaggerate, but it does make the point.
It is unclear why those not at risk (most of the population), should not be allowed to develop natural immunity, rather than be in thrall to pharmaceutical companies with “non-immunizing” solutions rushed through safety trials, which are better described as “gene therapy” (the description in their own EUAs). And if indeed these “vaccines” prompt cells in the body to synthesize the “spike protein” (which causes the illness), this protein may well, it has been alleged in medical journals, “result in the pathogenesis of certain diseases.”
Anyway, with other treatments with overwhelming results and none of these concerns, and such a low infection fatality rate overall, the “mania” to inflict this on everyone reeks of something other than public health concern.
Two Paradigms Not Competing Science
Once more, the data is clear. The models are akin to “thought experiments”, and do not take human, ethical or social considerations into account. They are not meant to.
Assessing the Pandemic: Modeling vs. Clinical and Epidemiological Data
As the authors of a recent paper which crystallized this overall distinction, A Tale of Two Scientific Paradigms, summarize:
Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdown, masking, etc.)
Models love them; data shows them to be counter-productive and certainly ineffective and unsustainable.
Models assume not. Data shows clear evidence this exists.
Does strengthening immunity, including time outdoors help?
Not a factor in the models. Demonstrably important as per a review of those who recover and populations (almost all spread occurs indoors).
Models ignore it. Those studying surges empirically, and how successive waves have been weaker as predicted, integrate it as an important variable.
Testing practices, death certificate protocols and “defining” cases
Models assume all is as it seems, even where infectiousness or positive tests mushroom, and deaths stay mild (UK over the Delta period). Those looking at data know we have never filled death certificates in this tenuous way disconnected from primary cause of death, and can see PCR distortion, and even the US withdrawing the EUA of the original PCR test which was the template.
How does C-19 compare to other influenza type illnesses?
According to modelers, worse than any in a century. For empiricists, age and population adjusted, both the Asian and Hong Kong flu were arguably deadlier. In all the other pandemics the young were the primary victims, in this, the average age of death is beyond life expectancy globally. So, this is worse than average for the elderly, far milder than average for everyone else, particularly the young (as per US CDC only one child has died from COVID without a serious comorbidity).
For modelers, the only solution. For those looking at data, voluntary vaccination of those most at risk makes some sense, but vaccines need to be safe and effective, and clearly define the protection provided.
Modelers insist these must have overwhelming randomized clinical evidence. Why? The “vaccines” don’t. In those trials, only 1-2% of volunteers tested positive for C-19 and were therefore assessed, so all we have is “relative risk reduction” of a very small population that did not include the vulnerable for “evidence.” Many of the therapeutics have tremendous non-randomized evidence in addition which is what doctors have always used based on clinical results, particularly in a crisis. They also have nominal safety risks (billions of doses for the key ones safely used on humans), so it is insane not to use them.
So, we vacuously studied Australia and Vietnam and Germany (also outperformed by Sweden). We should have been studying Sweden, Florida and Japan. And remember the assessment is COVID results WITH an open, functioning society, where people still recognize their lives and can interact. “No society, no COVID” is a pyrrhic victory if a “victory” at all.
In too much of the world instead the following description, in thrall to models, and ignoring facts has held true:
Core values undermined; sense of country compromised. Lockdowns repeatedly imposed that don’t work and cause harm we haven’t come close to aggregating, never enumerated as we dare not look it in the face. Wildly inaccurate modeling that predicted catastrophe and despite recurring inaccuracy delivered riches and prominence to forecasters. A succession of non-medical interventions with no basis in science and no public understanding that’s the case, the tragic combination of the authoritarian ruler and the low information voter. Punitive policing, absence of clarity, no expressed leadership strategy or course correction based on results. Incoherent messaging from the top. Disastrous politicians rubber stamping noxious and untenable ideology, replete with magic money tree economics. Relentless “positive test” announcements, cronyism to power so any dissent is removed, and a radical social experiment asserted against decades if not more of epidemiological wisdom.
So, we have to shake off the stupor. And our leaders need to see and hear us say “no” and experience our unflinching non-acceptance of being duped and gulled by an increasingly deranged set of assertions. We have to enlarge our vision and bolster our will, not look to politicians to suddenly transform into saviors.
We must “see” the many victims here. We must demand open schools, all those countries that did, had no associated cause for alarm, children are not at risk. Hospitals must no longer shun those in need. People should not be repeatedly locked in their own homes. Businesses should not be ordered to destroy themselves. Incessant scare-mongering needs to be taken off media channels. Rights and freedoms must be restored to their place of unquestioned dignity because we will accept no less…unalienable rights indeed.
We cannot afford to cower; we must locate courage. We must find like-minded activists who want to carve a future worthy of the talent, energy, and inspiration of their countries. Let’s take our economic medicine, lets own the repercussions of our own culpability in being so pliant, but now gird our loins, gather our spirit and shelve “magical thinking.” Let’s show the zeal and fortitude as a human family we have before. It’s time to transcend the monumental stupidities and inhumanities of this period. High time.