Wuhan Coronavirus: NATO economic weapon? China virology lab?

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

CORONAVIRUS
All children who died of Covid-19 were already seriously ill
Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has said that the risks for children returning to school are very low
Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has said that the risks for children returning to school are very low
PIPPA FOWLES/EPA
Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent
Friday August 28 2020, 9.00am, The Times
No child who was not already profoundly ill has died of Covid-19 in Britain, a large study has indicated, with the researchers saying that the results should reassure parents as a new school term begins.

The study looked at 260 hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. Out of the 69,500 patients admitted with proven Covid-19 in the first six months of the year, 651 — or 0.9 per cent — were under 19 years of age.

[TonyGosling]

PETER HITCHENS: We rant about the BBC Proms... yet make ourselves slaves to coronaphobia
By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY

PUBLISHED: 23:49, 29 August 2020 | UPDATED: 06:17, 30 August 2020

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8677727/PETER-HITCHENS-rant -BBC-Proms-make-slaves.html

Why are arguments about the love of country always held between BBC-type Britain-hating pinkoes, embarrassed by their own nation, and shouty jingoes, who never think about what patriotism really means?

Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms.

Yet the same people who claim to be exercised about this meekly submit to compulsory masks, house arrest, the suppression of Parliament, compulsory family separation and a catalogue of outrages against our liberty that only a slavish mind would accept.

For months, jingoes put up with being treated like cattle or serfs. Then they get cross because of a song? What is wrong with them?

Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms (pictured above) +4
Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms (pictured above)

A proper patriot knows that what makes us great above all is centuries of liberty, and a state that is beneath our feet, not over our heads.

All they needed to do was to say 'We're not putting up with this' as our ancestors so frequently did. But they gave in without a whimper.

When Britain actually did rule the waves, my late father helped it to do so. In peacetime this involved years of rigorous training, harsh discomfort and long months of separation from home. In wartime, well, you probably know what it involved if you think about it.

That's why we did not become the slaves of Hitler in the 1940s – because we still controlled the seas that surround us.

RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next

PETER HITCHENS: My suspicion is that the wrecking of the...

PETER HITCHENS: Should the woman who said the IRA had a...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
By my guess, 40 well-handled destroyers, commanded and crewed by serious, well-trained fighting men, probably made the crucial difference when it mattered. But my father, like most of those who actually do the hard work which defends the freedoms of both pinkoes and jingoes, was not much given to bombast.

The Russian convoys he took part in were grisly, exhausting, sleepless slog, not glorious. He'd lost too many friends in war. He preferred sad sea songs like Tom Bowling to any amount of Rule, Britannia.

Around 1960, not long after an ungrateful government had dumped my father on the beach in post-Suez defence cuts, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock.

Around 1960, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock (pictured, Last Night of the Proms in 2014) +4
Around 1960, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock (pictured, Last Night of the Proms in 2014)

It was a few years before the BBC fell under the spell of the cultural revolutionaries, who have been trying to get rid of such things since 1969. So she was still able to get as far as the verse containing the words 'Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame'.

I suspect everyone listening, from my eight-year-old self to the most ancient retired Admiral nodding over his grog, pictured those haughty tyrants as foreigners in strange uniforms or silly hats, Bonaparte, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin.

We never thought that – when it came to it – our painfully acquired freedoms would be strangled by a jolly, obese, blond Etonian.

Or that a people once famed for their fierceness and independence would be tamed into muzzled, mumbling submissives by a little well-orchestrated fear propaganda.

Never shall be slaves, indeed. What right do we now have to sing it at all, whether the BBC lets us or not?


Is this advert masking a simple truth?

In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters all over the country.

In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters +4
In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters

You may have seen it. An attractive young woman is shown with half her face obscured by a piece of cloth, which may well have been made from an item of clothing.

'I wear this to protect you,' she is supposed to be saying. 'Please wear yours to protect me.' I said to the ASA that she may believe this is so, but there is no hard experimental evidence to support the claim that people who wear such loose cloth masks protect me at all.

The poster could claim 'I wear this because I believe it protects you'. But it is wrong to say that it does.

I am pleased to say that the ASA has agreed to investigate the complaint – and has now referred it to its council. I will let you know what happens.


Covid? You may as well fear falling tortoises

Is anyone still fooled by these figures for 'cases' of Covid-19? The more you look, the more you will find, but deaths and hospitalisations keep going down. It's increasingly clear that the virus rarely affects healthy people.

In fact, I'd guess that the chance of a healthy young person dying from Covid is about as great as the chance of an eagle dropping a tortoise on your head and killing you.

This actually happened to Greek playwright Aeschlyus about 2,500 years ago, so it must be about due to happen again, especially with the growing eagle population in the country, and the huge number of pet tortoises on which they might swoop if hungry. Be afraid.

Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock, we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace.

Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock (above), we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace +4
Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock (above), we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace

Perhaps the enforced wearing of tortoise-proof helmets might be necessary, or anti-eagle netting installed over the back gardens of tortoise-owners, who should from now on be strictly licensed.

But my favourite Hancock-style solution is the compulsory greasing of all tortoises, so that eagles cannot pick them up in the first place.

I think this meets the precautionary principle quite well, and I'm sure our domestic grease industry can cope with the demand. Save Lives. Control the Tortoise.


For some years I have written occasionally for a thoughtful American magazine called First Things. Last week, they asked me to censor what I had written.

They said: 'We are trying to be slightly less critical of the lockdown measures on the site these days (though criticism is of course warranted), so we've made a few changes to the final paragraphs.

'The First Things board has concerns about some of the pieces we have published on Covid. They have asked us to be less dismissive of Covid-19.'

They then asked me to 'revise' what I had written (which I have now published unrevised on the Peter Hitchens blog). I said no, and have ceased to write for them. It is a sign of the deep damage this panic is doing to Western freedom that the censor's stupid, heavy hand should reach even into such gentle places.
Why are arguments about the love of country always held between BBC-type Britain-hating pinkoes, embarrassed by their own nation, and shouty jingoes, who never think about what patriotism really means?

Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms.

Yet the same people who claim to be exercised about this meekly submit to compulsory masks, house arrest, the suppression of Parliament, compulsory family separation and a catalogue of outrages against our liberty that only a slavish mind would accept.

For months, jingoes put up with being treated like cattle or serfs. Then they get cross because of a song? What is wrong with them?

Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms (pictured above) +4
Here we all are in a state of rage about whether the words of Rule, Britannia should be sung at the Last Night Of The Proms (pictured above)

A proper patriot knows that what makes us great above all is centuries of liberty, and a state that is beneath our feet, not over our heads.

All they needed to do was to say 'We're not putting up with this' as our ancestors so frequently did. But they gave in without a whimper.

When Britain actually did rule the waves, my late father helped it to do so. In peacetime this involved years of rigorous training, harsh discomfort and long months of separation from home. In wartime, well, you probably know what it involved if you think about it.

That's why we did not become the slaves of Hitler in the 1940s – because we still controlled the seas that surround us.

RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next

PETER HITCHENS: My suspicion is that the wrecking of the...

PETER HITCHENS: Should the woman who said the IRA had a...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
By my guess, 40 well-handled destroyers, commanded and crewed by serious, well-trained fighting men, probably made the crucial difference when it mattered. But my father, like most of those who actually do the hard work which defends the freedoms of both pinkoes and jingoes, was not much given to bombast.

The Russian convoys he took part in were grisly, exhausting, sleepless slog, not glorious. He'd lost too many friends in war. He preferred sad sea songs like Tom Bowling to any amount of Rule, Britannia.

Around 1960, not long after an ungrateful government had dumped my father on the beach in post-Suez defence cuts, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock.

Around 1960, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock (pictured, Last Night of the Proms in 2014) +4
Around 1960, I first heard Rule, Britannia, sung in a wonderful old-fashioned way by the contralto Constance Shacklock (pictured, Last Night of the Proms in 2014)

It was a few years before the BBC fell under the spell of the cultural revolutionaries, who have been trying to get rid of such things since 1969. So she was still able to get as far as the verse containing the words 'Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame'.

I suspect everyone listening, from my eight-year-old self to the most ancient retired Admiral nodding over his grog, pictured those haughty tyrants as foreigners in strange uniforms or silly hats, Bonaparte, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin.

We never thought that – when it came to it – our painfully acquired freedoms would be strangled by a jolly, obese, blond Etonian.

Or that a people once famed for their fierceness and independence would be tamed into muzzled, mumbling submissives by a little well-orchestrated fear propaganda.

Never shall be slaves, indeed. What right do we now have to sing it at all, whether the BBC lets us or not?


Is this advert masking a simple truth?

In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters all over the country.

In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters +4
In the continuing struggle of truth against falsehood, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about an advertisement plastered over bus shelters

You may have seen it. An attractive young woman is shown with half her face obscured by a piece of cloth, which may well have been made from an item of clothing.

'I wear this to protect you,' she is supposed to be saying. 'Please wear yours to protect me.' I said to the ASA that she may believe this is so, but there is no hard experimental evidence to support the claim that people who wear such loose cloth masks protect me at all.

The poster could claim 'I wear this because I believe it protects you'. But it is wrong to say that it does.

I am pleased to say that the ASA has agreed to investigate the complaint – and has now referred it to its council. I will let you know what happens.


Covid? You may as well fear falling tortoises

Is anyone still fooled by these figures for 'cases' of Covid-19? The more you look, the more you will find, but deaths and hospitalisations keep going down. It's increasingly clear that the virus rarely affects healthy people.

In fact, I'd guess that the chance of a healthy young person dying from Covid is about as great as the chance of an eagle dropping a tortoise on your head and killing you.

This actually happened to Greek playwright Aeschlyus about 2,500 years ago, so it must be about due to happen again, especially with the growing eagle population in the country, and the huge number of pet tortoises on which they might swoop if hungry. Be afraid.

Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock, we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace.

Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock (above), we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace +4
Using the panic-stricken logic applied to Covid by Health Commissar Matt Hancock (above), we should surely be taking serious precautions against this menace

Perhaps the enforced wearing of tortoise-proof helmets might be necessary, or anti-eagle netting installed over the back gardens of tortoise-owners, who should from now on be strictly licensed.

But my favourite Hancock-style solution is the compulsory greasing of all tortoises, so that eagles cannot pick them up in the first place.

I think this meets the precautionary principle quite well, and I'm sure our domestic grease industry can cope with the demand. Save Lives. Control the Tortoise.


For some years I have written occasionally for a thoughtful American magazine called First Things. Last week, they asked me to censor what I had written.

They said: 'We are trying to be slightly less critical of the lockdown measures on the site these days (though criticism is of course warranted), so we've made a few changes to the final paragraphs.

'The First Things board has concerns about some of the pieces we have published on Covid. They have asked us to be less dismissive of Covid-19.'

They then asked me to 'revise' what I had written (which I have now published unrevised on the Peter Hitchens blog). I said no, and have ceased to write for them. It is a sign of the deep damage this panic is doing to Western freedom that the censor's stupid, heavy hand should reach even into such gentle places.

[TonyGosling]

The true risk of Covid-19? Not much more than taking a regular bath: TIM HARFORD, an expert on statistics, says just one in 2million lives is at risk in Britain from coronavirus every day

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8692081/The-true-risk-Covid -19-Not-taking-regular-bath-writes-TIM-HARFORD.html

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Exclusive: Two-thirds of Americans say they won't get COVID-19 vaccine when it's first available, USA TODAY/ Suffolk Poll shows
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/04/covid-19-two-th irds-us-wont-take-vaccine-right-away-poll-shows/5696982002/

[TonyGosling]

“We Have A Lot of Evidence That It’s A Fake Story All Over The World” – German Doctors on COVID-19Published 4 weeks ago on August 17, 2020By Arjun WaliaCE Staff Writer 221.6K likes
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/09/11/university-of-waterloo -doctor-professor-refers-to-covid-19-as-fake/

IN BRIEF
The Facts:More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the "Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee" to investigate what's happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19.
Reflect On:Why are so many professionals and experts in the field being censored, ridiculed and shut down by organizations like the WHO? Should we not have the right to examine information openly, freely, and transparently?
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence that it’s a fake story all over the world” is an actual quote from a representative of the group discussed in the article. The statement was said. Whether or not what the quote says is true, on the other hand, is up for you to decide or according to multiple governments, is up for the World Health Organization (WHO) to decide. Is the title misleading or inaccurate? No, again, it’s a direct quote and represents the opinion of multiple health professionals. Are these health professionals implying that COVID-19 is a fake virus? No, they are simply implying that it’s not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be., and I summarize some of that information below that has them coming to that conclusion.

From the Web

Doing This Simple Morning Ritual Might Help You Get Rid of Stubborn Body Fat!
Doing This Simple Morning Ritual Might Help You Get Rid of Stubborn Body Fat!
The Daily Survivor
advertisement - learn more
These doctors and scientists are being heavily censored across all social media platforms, and those who write about them are experiencing the same. Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.

-->Watch Now Free: The Need To GROW is a deeply moving and award-winning documentary exploring solutions needed to build a healthy future for humanity. Click here to watch now!

What Happened: More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called “Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss.” Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss stands for the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee and was established to investigate all things that pertain to the new coronavirus such as the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.

As the Corona-Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, we will investigate why these restrictive measures were imposed upon us in our country as part of COVID-19, why people are suffering now and whether there is proportionality of the measures to this disease caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. We have serious doubts that these measures are proportionate. This needs to be examined, and since the parliaments – neither the opposition parties nor the ruling parties – have not convened a committee and it is not even planned, it is high time that we took this into our own hands. We will invite and hear experts here in the Corona speaker group. These are experts from all areas of life: Medicine, social affairs, law, economics and many more. (source)

You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.

This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.” To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it.

From the Web
"Our New System Will Help Our Citizens Return to a Stable Economic Situation"
"Our New System Will Help Our Citizens Return to a Stable Economic Situation"
InvestHelper
Ads by Revcontent
advertisement - learn more
I also think it’s important to mention that a report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.

Below is a press conference held by representatives of the group that took place last month, you can find more important information below that.


Why This Is Important: It can be confusing for many people to see so many doctors and many of the world’s most renowned scientists and infectious disease experts oppose so much information that is coming from the WHO and global governments.

Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old. You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.

Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus and has claimed that, with regards to lockdown measures, that “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing.” You can read more about this here.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.

Implementation of the current draconian measures that are so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.

Below are some interesting statistics from Canada. (source)



The Takeaway
We have to ask ourselves, why are so many experts in the field being completely censored. Why is there so much information being shared that completely contradicts the narrative of our federal health regulatory agencies and organizations like the WHO? Why are these experts being heavily censored, and why are alternative media platforms being censored, punished and demonetized for sharing such information? Is there a battle for our perception happening right now? Is our consciousness being manipulated? Why is there so much conflicting information if everything is crystal clear? Why are alternative treatments that have shown tremendous amounts of success being completely ignored and ridiculed? What’s going on here, and how much power do governments have when they are able to silence the voice of so many people? Should we not be examining information openly, transparently, and together?

[TonyGosling]

Iranian General: Coronavirus Is A Manmade Bio-Weapon
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 03/05/2020 - 11:55
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/iranian-general-coronavirus-manmade-b io-weapon

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

An Iranian military leader has suggested that the coronavirus is not a naturally occurring disease, and that it is a manmade bioweapon cultivated and released against China and Iran by a ‘hostile state’.



Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, an Iranian officer in charge of the country’s Civil Defense Organization claimed Tuesday that:

“A study of the consequences of the virus in terms of tolls or the extent of the epidemic and the type of media propaganda over this issue that is aimed at increasing fear and panic among people strengthens the speculations that a biological attack has been launched against China and Iran with economic goals.”

Strongly hinting that the the virus is a bio-attack by the US, Jalali told Iranian Fars News Agency, state media, that he is seeking “laboratorial investigations and comparing the genome of the primary virus and the new genomes” to confirm his theory.

Iran has been accused of covering up the real extent of the outbreak within its borders. At time of writing it has officially recorded only 92 deaths from 2,922 cases, but those numbers are significantly lower than what independent reports and claims from dissident groups within the country suggest. The real number of deaths is thought to be in the high hundreds or thousands.

Videos uploaded to YouTube by the dissident groups purport to show people collapsing in the streets of Tehran from the effects of the virus, and are reminiscent of previous videos from China:



The BBC published footage that is said to be from Iran, showing hundreds of bodies in bags at a local morgue in Qom. Mideast-based correspondent Joyce Karam commented that “If these are confirmed to be from Corona as videos claim, death toll is higher than the government claims.”


Other videos show preparations for mass graves, and health workers in full Hazmat gear burying victims:



A new video with translation, a dire situation in Iran (Video by @HeshmatAlavi), Translated by my friend, an Iranian journalist, can’t publish journalist’s name due to concerns for safety of her family in Iran. There’s no freedom of press in that country. pic.twitter.com/bHqUZQqLwR

— Max Howroute▫️ (@howroute) March 3, 2020
Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khamenei issued a statement Tuesday urging that the “jihad” against coronavirus is proving successful, and that the outbreak “is not such a big tragedy.”

“I don’t want to say it’s unimportant, but let’s not exaggerate it either. The Coronavirus will affect the country briefly & leave. But the experience it brings, and the actions of the people & the govt sectors, are like a public exercise that will remain as an achievement,” Khamenei said.

The idea that the virus originated in a lab has been a talking point ever since the outbreak started, with some US officials and western biological experts expressing concern that coronavirus may be a Chinese bio-weapon.


Mike Adams joins Alex Jones live via Skype to confirm that the coronavirus is a bioweapon released by the Chinese Communist government to destroy the United States’ economy.

One US official who hasn’t shied away from probing the bio-weapon angle is Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, who has stated several times that Beijing needs to address the questions, and that the “burden of proof” is on “the communists” to explain where the virus came from.



NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Your email...
Cotton has noted that “Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that works with the worlds most deadly pathogens that include the coronavirus.”



Other officials, such as senior White House advisor Peter Navarro have admitted that they are not ruling out any possibilities:


Dr. Francis Boyle joins The Alex Jones Show to expose the smoking gun linking the weaponized Wuhan virus to the U.S

[TonyGosling]

PETER HITCHENS: How the Government is wading into the swamp of despotism – one muzzle at a time
CaptureThis is Peter Hitchens’s Mail on Sunday column
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/09/peter-hitchens-how-the -government-is-wading-into-the-swamp-of-despotism-one-muzzle-at-a-time .html

The Government has no legal right to impose the severe and miserable restrictions on our lives with which it has wrecked the economy, brought needless grief to the bereaved and the lonely and destroyed our personal liberty.

This is the verdict of one of the most distinguished lawyers in the country, the retired Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption.

He said last week in a podcast interview:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/10/planet-normal-use-fear-has -brought-greatest-invasion-personal/

‘I don’t myself believe that the Act confers on the Government the powers that it has purported to exercise.’

He was referring to the Public Health Act of 1984, the basis for almost all the sheaves of increasingly hysterical decrees against normal life which the Health Secretary Matt Hancock has issued since March. I promise you that it is not usual for a retired senior judge to use such language in public.

This 1984 Act was drawn up mainly to give local magistrates the power to quarantine the sick.

Nothing in it remotely justifies these astonishing moves – house arrest, travel restrictions, harsh limits on visiting family members, interference with funerals and weddings, closure of churches, compulsory muzzles, bans on assembly and protest.

English law just does not allow an Act of Parliament to be stretched so far. Magistrates are never given such powers. It is a principle of our law that fundamental freedoms cannot be invaded or overruled unless the law specifically allows it.

As he is one of the most distinguished legal minds of our time, Jonathan Sumption’s opinions on this matter are surely important. Let us hope that the Courts of England, which have so far been content to let the Government do what it likes, will listen to what he says when they look at the matter again later this month, in the case brought by Simon Dolan, a businessman who is seeking a judicial review of the Government’s policy on Covid-19.

It is extraordinary for such a person as Lord Sumption to go public in this fashion. And he went on to say another astonishing thing. He pointed out that powers do exist – in the shape of the formidable Civil Contingencies Act – under which the Prime Minister could do all the things he has done. But the CCA requires regular parliamentary scrutiny and renewal.

The Government’s team of lawyers must know this. So why wasn’t the CCA used? We can only guess that the Prime Minister and his Health Secretary feared that if they had to keep coming back to Parliament, even the dim, slumbering and gullible MPs we have nowadays would eventually have spotted, and halted, the immense power grab now under way.

Lord Sumption’s intervention is, of course, so huge and important that the media of this country have somehow not noticed it. So, as has been the case from the start, you have to get it from me. But believe me, it is an indication of just how deep into the swamp of despotism this Government has already waded.

Let us escape soon, before we are so far in we can never get out again.

Bare-faced state bullies
The most terrible warning of what lies ahead of us – if we cannot smash the Government’s lies – is in Melbourne, Australia, where a vain little despot called Daniel Andrews has locked his subjects in their homes, banned demonstrations against this policy, and unleashed heavy-handed police against protesters and dissenters.

At this rate, Melbourne will soon be twinned with Minsk, capital of Belarus. The treatment of protesters on the streets of both cities is remarkably similar. I was most struck by what happened to a young woman demonstrator at the hands of Melbourne police, after they had grabbed and restrained her, so that she was powerless.

An officer actually put a covering over her mouth. It was not the only such incident that day and it explains, to those who object, why I call these things muzzles.

They are there to humiliate, to cancel individuality and to indicate assent – forced or otherwise – to the crazy policy of trying to treat a virus with naked state power.

If US police forced handcuffed Left-wing protesters to wear Trumpoid ‘Make America Great Again’ baseball caps it would be about the same.

Now hiking’s a crime, but dope is fine
One of my rules is that the more political the police become, the more useless they are against actual crime. Here is a good example. Police who have over the past few months pursued sunbathers, hikers, people going into their own front gardens or showing their naked faces on trains, now plan a new extra-soft line on marijuana.

Even though this terrible drug is increasingly linked with lifelong mental illness and violence, liberal police chiefs are still lost in a Sixties-style haze of dope, believing dubious claims that it is a medicine.

Legalisers have long privately admitted these claims are a red herring to give pot a good name. How can something which makes many of its users mentally ill be a medicine?

But lo, police chiefs are backing a new ‘cannabis card’ that will provide de-facto decriminalisation of the drug for millions of people with health conditions. Officers, who have already almost given up arresting people for possession, say it will give them a new excuse for failing to enforce the law.

Too busy on granny patrol, making sure children can’t see their grandmothers, I expect.

Schoolboy Johnson’s lies keep getting bigger
Imagine a naughty schoolboy afraid to admit what started as a minor misdeed. Such a schoolboy, having broken the headmaster’s window with his catapult, and trying to evade punishment, might invent a story about a gang of yobs bursting into the school grounds.

So the police are called and he deepens the falsehood. The longer it goes on, the more embarrassing it will be to confess. Innocent people are rounded up, arrested and charged on the basis of his claims.

He gives false evidence against them. They lose their freedom, perhaps have their lives ruined. The lie is now even worse. He must either confess or elaborate the false story of the gang, for ever. And the worse it gets, the harder it is to own up. So he lies and keeps lying.

So it is with our Prime Minister. He panicked in March, on the basis of poor advice. He did immense damage and knows it. But rather than admit he hugely overestimated the danger of Covid, he continues to insist it is a deadly plague and that it will be back soon in a terrible second wave. The official Covid death and hospitalisation figures, declining ever since April 8, are now bumping along the bottom of the graph, close to zero.

Hence the false epidemic of so-called Covid ‘cases’, which the Government is trying to pretend exists. How simple-minded do you need to be not to see the great flaw in this?

On Monday, the media reported new coronavirus cases in the UK had risen to 2,988 on Sunday, the highest daily total since May. Panic! Or perhaps not.

I searched the Government’s own spreadsheets and what did I find? More than 1.1 million tests each week but fewer than 10,000 positive results. Judging by the state of the hospitals and the death rates, I think we may assume most were just fine, as most who catch this disease are. So, for this, we propose to stop people gathering in groups of more than six? I sense even those who have, up till now, put up with this rubbish are beginning to tire of it.

Good, for until you do and demand truthful explanations of why your children’s education has been ruined, why legions of people will lose their jobs, why daily life is an intensifying misery of jobsworths and bureaucracy, and why hundreds of businesses built up with years of sweat and risk are now dying, you will just get more lies.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

this week's graph

[TonyGosling]

Another six months
Boris Johnson announces new shutdown

Public told to work from home, with UK at 'perilous turning point'
Hospitality told to close at 10pm and restricted to table service only
New rules on where face masks must be worn; weddings capped at 15 people
Businesses could be closed if they fail to obey; army on hand to support police
Return of sporting events suspended and rule of six applied to indoor sports
PM attends Cabinet after Cobra meeting and will address nation at 8pm

By
Dominic Penna

[TonyGosling]

A lot of of people will now have heard of The Great Reset directly from The World Economic Forum, or the fourth industrial revolution from Davos or Agenda 2030 as part of the UN sustainability goals. All of which are being fast tracked into fruition by the current events and which are wrapped up in such progressive and fluffy language that no one really realises they are unwittingly being marched into a global digital jail.
https://www.facebook.com/pjhenningsen/posts/10159330958576002

This new society will result in most of us being colonized by military nano-tech at a cellular level where literally everything about us is tracked and monitored and fed into social credit scoring and human capital bonds markets which are more than likely to advance eugenics laced impact deals, as well as the financialization of nature and predatory poverty mining for hedge funds. The financial and technological oligarchs have basically crafted, with help from heavily funded academics and think tanks and the harnessing of NGOs, a global economic control system that will dominate most of the humans on the earth as well as its natural resources and which is bathed in classism and eugenics.

Sounds horrifying? It is. As Alison would say, we are now teetering on the brink worldwide techo-fascism unless we stop it. ‘What is the role of government, if Google / AWS / Goldman Sachs / Palantir is your government, Welcome to the biosecurity police state’.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Lies, Damned Lies, & UK Health Statistics: The Deadly Danger Of False Positives
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/lies-damned-lies-uk-health-statistic s-deadly-danger-false-positives

by Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/22/2020 - 05:00
Authored by Dr. Michael Yeadon via www.lockdownsceptics.org,

I never expected to be writing something like this. I am an ordinary person, recently semi-retired from a career in the pharmaceutical industry and biotech, where I spent over 30 years trying to solve problems of disease understanding and seek new treatments for allergic and inflammatory disorders of lung and skin. I’ve always been interested in problem solving, so when anything biological comes along, my attention is drawn to it. Come 2020, came SARS-CoV-2. I’ve written about the pandemic as objectively as I could. The scientific method never leaves a person who trained and worked as a professional scientist. Please do read that piece. My co-authors & I will submit it to the normal rigours of peer review, but that process is slow and many pieces of new science this year have come to attention through pre-print servers and other less conventional outlets.



While paying close attention to data, we all initially focused on the sad matter of deaths. I found it remarkable that, in discussing the COVID-19 related deaths, most people I spoke to had no idea of large numbers. Asked approximately how many people a year die in the UK in the ordinary course of events, each a personal tragedy, They usually didn’t know. I had to inform them it is around 620,000, sometimes less if we had a mild winter, sometimes quite a bit higher if we had a severe ’flu season. I mention this number because we know that around 42,000 people have died with or of COVID-19. While it’s a huge number of people, its ‘only’ 0.06% of the UK population. Its not a coincidence that this is almost the same proportion who have died with or of COVID-19 in each of the heavily infected European countries – for example, Sweden. The annual all-causes mortality of 620,000 amounts to 1,700 per day, lower in summer and higher in winter. That has always been the lot of humans in the temperate zones. So for context, 42,000 is about ~24 days worth of normal mortality. Please know I am not minimising it, just trying to get some perspective on it. Deaths of this magnitude are not uncommon, and can occur in the more severe flu seasons. Flu vaccines help a little, but on only three occasions in the last decade did vaccination reach 50% effectiveness. They’re good, but they’ve never been magic bullets for respiratory viruses. Instead, we have learned to live with such viruses, ranging from numerous common colds all the way to pneumonias which can kill. Medicines and human caring do their best.

So, to this article...

Its about the testing we do with something called PCR, an amplification technique, better known to biologists as a research tool used in our labs, when trying to unpick mechanisms of disease.

I was frankly astonished to realise they’re sometimes used in population screening for diseases – astonished because it is a very exacting technique, prone to invisible errors and it’s quite a tall order to get reliable information out of it, especially because of the prodigious amounts of amplification involved in attempting to pick up a strand of viral genetic code. The test cannot distinguish between a living virus and a short strand of RNA from a virus which broke into pieces weeks or months ago.

I believe I have identified a serious, really a fatal flaw in the PCR test used in what is called by the UK Government the Pillar 2 screening – that is, testing many people out in their communities. I’m going to go through this with care and in detail because I’m a scientist and dislike where this investigation takes me. I’m not particularly political and my preference is for competent, honest administration over the actual policies chosen. We’re a reasonable lot in UK and not much given to extremes. What I’m particularly reluctant about is that, by following the evidence, I have no choice but to show that the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, misled the House of Commons and also made misleading statements in a radio interview. Those are serious accusations. I know that. I’m not a ruthless person. But I’m writing this anyway, because what I have uncovered is of monumental importance to the health and wellbeing of all the people living in the nation I have always called home.

Back to the story, and then to the evidence. When the first (and I think, only) wave of COVID-19 hit the UK, I was with almost everyone else in being very afraid. I’m 60 and in reasonable health, but on learning that I had about a 1% additional risk of perishing if I caught the virus, I discovered I was far from ready to go. So, I wasn’t surprised or angry when the first lockdown arrived. It must have been a very difficult thing to decide. However, before the first three-week period was over, I’d begun to develop an understanding of what was happening. The rate of infection, which has been calculated to have infected well over 100,000 new people every day around the peak, began to fall, and was declining before lockdown. Infection continued to spread out, at an ever-reducing rate and we saw this in the turning point of daily deaths, at a grim press conference each afternoon. We now know that lockdown made no difference at all to the spread of the virus. We can tell this because the interval between catching the virus and, in those who don’t make it, their death is longer than the interval between lockdown and peak daily deaths. There isn’t any controversy about this fact, easily demonstrated, but I’m aware some people like to pretend it was lockdown that turned the pandemic, perhaps to justify the extraordinary price we have all paid to do it. That price wasn’t just economic. It involved avoidable deaths from diseases other than COVID-19, as medical services were restricted, in order to focus on the virus. Some say that lockdown, directly and indirectly, killed as many as the virus. I don’t know. Its not something I’ve sought to learn. But I mention because interventions in all our lives should not be made lightly. Its not only inconvenience, but real suffering, loss of livelihoods, friendships, anchors of huge importance to us all, that are severed by such acts. We need to be certain that the prize is worth the price. While it is uncertain it was, even for the first lockdown, I too supported it, because we did not know what we faced, and frankly, almost everyone else did it, except Sweden. I am now resolutely against further interventions in what I have become convinced is a fruitless attempt to ‘control the virus’. We are, in my opinion – shared by others, some of whom are well placed to assess the situation – closer to the end of the pandemic in terms of deaths, than we are to its middle. I believe we should provide the best protection we can for any vulnerable people, and otherwise cautiously get on with our lives. I think we are all going to get a little more Swedish over time.

In recent weeks, though, it cannot have escaped anyone’s attention that there has been a drum beat which feels for all the world like a prelude to yet more fruitless and damaging restrictions. Think back to mid-summer. We were newly out of lockdown and despite concerns for crowded beaches, large demonstrations, opening of shops and pubs, the main item on the news in relation to COVID-19 was the reassuring and relentless fall in daily deaths. I noticed that, as compared to the slopes of the declining death tolls in many nearby countries, that our slope was too flat. I even mentioned to scientist friends that inferred the presence of some fixed signal that was being mixed up with genuine COVID-19 deaths. Imagine how gratifying it was when the definition of a COVID-19 death was changed to line up with that in other countries and in a heartbeat our declining death toll line became matched with that elsewhere. I was sure it would: what we have experienced and witnessed is a terrible kind of equilibrium. A virus that kills few, then leaves survivors who are almost certainly immune – a virus to which perhaps 30-50% were already immune because it has relatives and some of us have already encountered them – accounts for the whole terrible but also fascinating biological process. There was a very interesting piece in the BMJ in recent days that offers potential support for this contention.

Now we have learned some of the unusual characteristics of the new virus, better treatments (anti-inflammatory steroids, anti-coagulants and in particular, oxygen masks and not ventilators in the main) the ‘case fatality rate’ even for the most hard-hit individuals is far lower now than it was six months ago.

As there is no foundational, medical or scientific literature which tells us to expect a ‘second wave’, I began to pay more attention to the phrase as it appeared on TV, radio and print media – all on the same day – and has been relentlessly repeated ever since. I was interviewed recently by Julia Hartley-Brewer on her talkRADIO show and on that occasion I called on the Government to disclose to us the evidence upon which they were relying to predict this second wave. Surely they have some evidence? I don’t think they do. I searched and am very qualified to do so, drawing on academic friends, and we were all surprised to find that there is nothing at all. The last two novel coronaviruses, Sar (2003) and MERS (2012), were of one wave each. Even the WW1 flu ‘waves’ were almost certainly a series of single waves involving more than one virus. I believe any second wave talk is pure speculation. Or perhaps it is in a model somewhere, disconnected from the world of evidence to me? It would be reasonable to expect some limited ‘resurgence’ of a virus given we don’t mix like cordial in a glass of water, but in a more lumpy, human fashion. You’re most in contact with family, friends and workmates and they are the people with whom you generally exchange colds.

A long period of imposed restrictions, in addition to those of our ordinary lives did prevent the final few percent of virus mixing with the population. With the movements of holidays, new jobs, visiting distant relatives, starting new terms at universities and schools, that final mixing is under way. It should not be a terrifying process. It happens with every new virus, flu included. It’s just that we’ve never before in our history chased it around the countryside with a technique more suited to the biology lab than to a supermarket car park.

A very long prelude, but necessary.

Part of the ‘project fear’ that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the daily count of ‘cases’. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I’ve spoken to, the word ‘case’ has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don’t doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I’m confident it is not important.

That all said, Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it’s unclear to me if it does.

But there’s a final setting in which a person can be positive and that’s a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the ‘bait’ sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called false positives.

Think of any diagnostic test a doctor might use on you. The ideal diagnostic test correctly confirms all who have the disease and never wrongly indicates that healthy people have the disease. There is no such test. All tests have some degree of weakness in generating false positives. The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1 in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection methods and equipment. I’m focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus (recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.

Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.

Let me take you through this, though if you’re able to read Prof Carl Heneghan’s clearly written piece first, I’m more confident that I’ll be successful in explaining this dramatic conclusion to you. (Here is a link to the record of numbers of tests, combining Pillar 1 (hospital) and Pillar 2 (community).)

Imagine 10,000 people getting tested using those swabs you see on TV. We have a good estimate of the general prevalence of the virus from the ONS, who are wholly independent (from Pillar 2 testing) and are testing only a few people a day, around one per cent of the numbers recently tested in Pillar 2. It is reasonable to assume that most of the time, those being tested do not have symptoms. People were asked to only seek a test if they have symptoms. However, we know from TV news and stories on social media from sampling staff, from stern guidance from the Health Minister and the surprising fact that in numerous locations around the country, the local council is leafleting people’s houses, street by street to come and get tested.

The bottom line is that it is reasonable to expect the prevalence of the virus to be close to the number found by ONS, because they sample randomly, and would pick up symptomatic and asymptomatic people in proportion to their presence in the community. As of the most recent ONS survey, to a first approximation, the virus was found in 1 in every 1000 people. This can also be written as 0.1%. So when all these 10,000 people are tested in Pillar 2, you’d expect 10 true positives to be found (false negatives can be an issue when the virus is very common, but in this community setting, it is statistically unimportant and so I have chosen to ignore it, better to focus only on false positives).

So, what is the false positive rate of testing in Pillar 2? For months, this has been a concern. It appears that it isn’t known, even though as I’ve mentioned, you absolutely need to know it in order to work out whether the diagnostic test has any value! What do we know about the false positive rate? Well, we do know that the Government’s own scientists were very concerned about it, and a report on this problem was sent to SAGE dated June 3rd 2020. I quote: “Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK’s RT-PCR testing system, we risk over-estimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace and the extent of asymptomatic infection”. In that same report, the authors helpfully listed the lowest to highest false positive rate of dozens of tests using the same technology. The lowest value for false positive rate was 0.8%.

Allow me to explain the impact of a false positive rate of 0.8% on Pillar 2. We return to our 10,000 people who’ve volunteered to get tested, and the expected ten with virus (0.1% prevalence or 1:1000) have been identified by the PCR test. But now we’ve to calculate how many false positives are to accompanying them. The shocking answer is 80. 80 is 0.8% of 10,000. That’s how many false positives you’d get every time you were to use a Pillar 2 test on a group of that size.

The effect of this is, in this example, where 10,000 people have been tested in Pillar 2, could be summarised in a headline like this: “90 new cases were identified today” (10 real positive cases and 80 false positives). But we know this is wildly incorrect. Unknown to the poor technician, there were in this example, only 10 real cases. 80 did not even have a piece of viral RNA in their sample. They are really false positives.

I’m going to explain how bad this is another way, back to diagnostics. If you’d submitted to a test and it was positive, you’d expect the doctor to tell you that you had a disease, whatever it was testing for. Usually, though, they’ll answer a slightly different question: “If the patient is positive in this test, what is the probability they have the disease?” Typically, for a good diagnostic test, the doctor will be able to say something like 95% and you and they can live with that. You might take a different, confirmatory test, if the result was very serious, like cancer. But in our Pillar 2 example, what is the probability a person testing positive in Pillar 2 actually has COVID-19? The awful answer is 11% (10 divided by 80 + 10). The test exaggerates the number of covid-19 cases by almost ten-fold (90 divided by 10). Scared yet? That daily picture they show you, with the ‘cases’ climbing up on the right-hand side? Its horribly exaggerated. Its not a mistake, as I shall show.

Earlier in the summer, the ONS showed the virus prevalence was a little lower, 1 in 2000 or 0.05%. That doesn’t sound much of a difference, but it is. Now the Pillar 2 test will find half as many real cases from our notional 10,000 volunteers, so 5 real cases. But the flaw in the test means it will still find 80 false positives (0.8% of 10,000). So its even worse. The headline would be “85 new cases identified today”. But now the probability a person testing positive has the virus is an absurdly low 6% (5 divided by 80 + 5). Earlier in the summer, this same test exaggerated the number of COVID-19 cases by 17-fold (85 divided by 5). Its so easy to generate an apparently large epidemic this way. Just ignore the problem of false positives. Pretend its zero. But it is never zero.

This test is fatally flawed and MUST immediately be withdrawn and never used again in this setting unless shown to be fixed. The examples I gave are very close to what is actually happening every day as you read this.

I’m bound to ask, did Mr Hancock know of this fatal flaw? Did he know of the effect it would inevitably have, and is still having, not only on the reported case load, but the nation’s state of anxiety. I’d love to believe it is all an innocent mistake. If it was, though, he’d have to resign over sheer incompetence. But is it? We know that internal scientists wrote to SAGE, in terms, and, surely, this short but shocking warning document would have been drawn to the Health Secretary’s attention? If that was the only bit of evidence, you might be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the evidence grows more damning.

Recently, I published with my co-authors a short Position Paper. I don’t think by then, a month ago or so, the penny had quite dropped with me. And I’m an experienced biomedical research scientist, used to dealing with complex datasets and probabilities.

On September 11th 2020, I was a guest on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s talkRADIO show. Among other things, I called upon Mr Hancock to release the evidence underscoring his confidence in and planning for ‘the second wave’. This evidence has not yet been shown to the public by anyone. I also demanded he disclose the operational false positive rate in Pillar 2 testing.

On September 16th, I was back on Julia’s show and this time focused on the false positive rate issue (1m 45s – 2min 30s). I had read Carl Heneghan’s analysis showing that even if the false positive rate was as low as 0.1%, 8 times lower than any similar test, it still yields a majority of false positives. So, my critique doesn’t fall if the actual false positive rate is lower than my assumed 0.8%.

On September 18th, Mr Hancock again appeared, as often he does, on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s show. Julia asked him directly (1min 50s – on) what the false positive rate in Pillar 2 is. Mr Hancock said “It’s under 1%”. Julia again asked him exactly what it was, and did he even know it? He didn’t answer that, but then said “it means that, for all the positive cases, the likelihood of one being a false positive is very small”.

That is a seriously misleading statement as it is incorrect. The likelihood of an apparently positive case being a false positive is between 89-94%, or near-certainty. Of note, even when ONS was recording its lowest-ever prevalence, the positive rate in Pillar 2 testing never fell below 0.8%.

It gets worse for the Health Secretary. On September the 17th, I believe, Mr Hancock took a question from Sir Desmond Swayne about false positives. It is clear that Sir Desmond is asking about Pillar 2.

Mr Hancock replied:

“I like my right honourable friend very much and I wish it were true. The reason we have surveillance testing, done by ONS, is to ensure that we’re constantly looking at a nationally representative sample at what the case rate is. The latest ONS survey, published on Friday, does show a rise consummate (sic) with the increased number of tests that have come back positive.”

He did not answer Sir Desmond’s question, but instead answered a question of his choosing. Did the Health Secretary knowingly mislead the House? By referring only to ONS and not even mentioning the false positive rate of the test in Pillar 2 he was, as it were, stealing the garb of ONS’s more careful work which has a lower false positive rate, in order to smuggle through the hidden and very much higher, false positive rate in Pillar 2. The reader will have to decide for themselves.

Pillar 2 testing has been ongoing since May but it’s only in recent weeks that it has reached several hundreds of thousands of tests per day. The effect of the day by day climb in the number of people that are being described as ‘cases’ cannot be overstated. I know it is inducing fear, anxiety and concern for the possibility of new and unjustified restrictions, including lockdowns. I have no idea what Mr Hancock’s motivations are. But he has and continues to use the hugely inflated output from a fatally flawed Pillar 2 test and appears often on media, gravely intoning the need for additional interventions (none of which, I repeat, are proven to be effective).

You will be very familiar with the cases plot which is shown on most TV broadcasts at the moment. It purports to show the numbers of cases which rose then fell in the spring, and the recent rise in cases. This graph is always accompanied by the headline that “so many thousands of new cases were detected in the last 24 hours”.

You should know that there are two major deceptions, in that picture, which combined are very likely both to mislead and to induce anxiety. Its ubiquity indicates that it is a deliberate choice.

Firstly, it is very misleading in relation to the spring peak of cases. This is because we had no community screening capacity at that time. A colleague has adjusted the plot to show the number of cases we would have detected, had there been a well-behaved community test capability available. The effect is to greatly increase the size of the spring cases peak, because there are very many cases for each hospitalisation and many hospitalisations for every death.

Secondly, as I hope I have shown and persuaded you, the cases in summer and at present, generated by seriously flawed Pillar 2 tests, should be corrected downwards by around ten-fold.



I do believe genuine cases are rising somewhat. This is, however, also true for flu, which we neither measure daily nor report on every news bulletin. If we did, you would appreciate that, going forward, it is quite likely that flu is a greater risk to public health than COVID-19. The corrected cases plot (above) does, I believe, put the recent rises in incidence of COVID-19 in a much more reasonable context. I thought you should see that difference before arriving at your own verdict on this sorry tale.

There are very serious consequences arising from grotesque over-estimation of so-called cases in Pillar 2 community testing, which I believe was put in place knowingly. Perhaps Mr Hancock believes his own copy about the level of risk now faced by the general public? Its not for me to deduce. What this huge over-estimation has done is to have slowed the normalisation of the NHS. We are all aware that access to medical services is, to varying degrees, restricted. Many specialities were greatly curtailed in spring and after some recovery, some are still between a third and a half below their normal capacities. This has led both to continuing delays and growth of waiting lists for numerous operations and treatments. I am not qualified to assess the damage to the nation’s and individuals’ health as a direct consequence of this extended wait for a second wave.

Going into winter with this configuration will, on top of the already restricted access for six months, lead inevitably to a large number of avoidable, non-Covid deaths. That is already a serious enough charge. Less obvious but, in aggregate, additional impacts arise from fear of the virus, inappropriately heightened in my view, which include: damage to or even destruction of large numbers of businesses, especially small businesses, with attendant loss of livelihoods, loss of educational opportunities, strains on family relationships, eating disorders, increasing alcoholism and domestic abuse and even suicides, to name but a few.

In closing, I wish to note that in the last 40 years alone the UK has had seven official epidemics/pandemics; AIDS, Swine flu, CJD, SARS, MERS, Bird flu as well as annual, seasonal flu. All were very worrying but schools remained open and the NHS treated everybody and most of the population were unaffected. The country would rarely have been open if it had been shut down every time.

I have explained how a hopelessly-performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease but, it seems, solely to create fear.

This misuse of power must cease. All the above costs are on the ledger, too, when weighing up the residual risks to society from COVID-19 and the appropriate actions to take, if any. Whatever else happens, the test used in Pillar 2 must be immediately withdrawn as it provides no useful information. In the absence of vastly inflated case numbers arising from this test, the pandemic would be seen and felt to be almost over.

* * *

Dr Mike Yeadon is the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-Founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.

[TonyGosling]

[outsider]

Beginning to seem like Christmas every day, with all the whistle-blowers exposing the Plandemic/Scamdemic:
'Chief Science Officer for Pfizer Says “Second Wave” Faked on False-Positive COVID Tests, “Pandemic Is Over”:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/chief-science-officer-pfizer-says-second -wave-faked-false-positive-covid-tests-pandemic-over/5724753

[TonyGosling]

These Are the Good Old Days (Now Are You Scared?)
23409



International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains how and why the fraud is becoming clearer every day, and gives some astonishing new statistics which put government policies into question. He also provides a solution that will help us win the war and return our lives to normal.
For more unbiased information, please visit http://www.vernoncoleman.com
Thank you for all your encouragement and support.

https://brandnewtube.com/upload/videos/2020/09/9zeTeH75EzEVuAsUwCYX_23 _19e4562aede1a1ffd68674b8e7a3dee2_video_360p_converted.mp4

[TonyGosling]

We Need to Talk About Proteins — The Ronascam, The Vaccines, and Genetic Patents
https://www.activistpost.com/2020/09/we-need-to-talk-about-proteins-th e-ronascam-the-vaccines-and-genetic-patents.html
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020

By Julie Beal

There’s a lot more to this ronascam than we first thought – I did a little digging, to understand the new vaccines, and it became clear that part of the ‘reset’ the UN and WEF have announced is a future dominated by proteins and genetic hybrids.

There are genetically engineered proteins for vaccines, brewed in bioreactors inside cells from insects or bacteria, and there are bioreactors for ‘food’ products, etc., and a whole range of things, including pharmaceuticals. Proteins are also what the ronavax are all about, with some of them even using ‘fake DNA’ to turn our own bodies into bioreactors, churning out the proteins the genetic code instructs us to. Your body is a protein factory. Why pay for a bioreactor and wait months for them to ‘grow’? Injecting the code straight into us saves time and money.

Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
The new coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) vaccines are totally different to any vaccines that have been approved before, and yet they’ve been in development for over twenty years. There have been some genetic treatments made available, so why have no vaccines for humans been licensed?
The investors want results, to bring the products to market, and now a global experiment is being proposed.
The novel ingredients in the ronavax include DNA plasmids, modified mRNA, lipid nanoparticles, and the adenovirus envelope; but none of these have been licensed for humans before either!
The vaccines are plug-and-play ‘therapeutics’, so they are using the same platform each time but with a different genetic insert. They are all much cheaper and quicker to produce than the standard vaccines.
Patents for some of these platforms refer to the inclusion of xeno nucleic acid (XNAs), or unnatural amino acids (for instance, to produce mRNA) – these are synthetic analogues of ‘the real thing’. ‘Xeno’ means ‘not found in nature’ or ‘alien’.
The ronavax may also contain novel molecular adjuvants – that’s because genetic vaccines (let’s call them ‘genvax’) are said to need a lot of adjuvants, to make you have a strong immune response (pah!) – so instead of just the usual toxins being added (such as alum), more genetic code is added, e.g. for cytokines – this is also a very new and worrying gimmick.
The vaccines are part of the field of gene therapy which has managed to bring some treatments to market for serious illnesses such as cancer and diseases caused by missing or defective genes, but not so for the many vaccines, using the same platforms, which have also been designed and tested.
All of the platforms have been tested for over twenty years – there’s been a lot of tweaking of methods with some apparent success, but no profit.
There have been at least two deaths and a lot of illness and adverse events during trials, most of which are said to be under-reported. During the inquiry into Jesse Gelsinger’s death, for instance, “the FDA and NIH revealed that 691 volunteers in gene-therapy experiments had either died or fallen ill in the seven years before Jesse’s death; only 39 of these incidents had been reported promptly as required.”
It’s acknowledged by the experts that there’s a chance of cancer, autoimmune diseases and other problems, but they don’t say what happened to people more than a year or two after clinical trials, because nobody seems to check!
Millions of $ have been poured into genvax and other gene therapies, but still nothing has been brought to market – why?
Perhaps the ronascam is partly about overcoming the problems with getting genvax to market quickly – the laws arising from the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) have blocked many genetic patents from success over the years, but it seems to be giving up its power to the WHO! Bill Gates seems?? to have tried to influence the CBD about gene drives in 2017. The Nagoya Protocol and the Cartagena Protocol of the CBD are clearly standing in the way of a ‘free and open market’ for genetic products and patents, but the ronascam could enable the WHO to reframe Agenda 21 in favour of biotech.
From now on, no matter what, the answer will be: “Because virus!”
Ultimately, the ronavax could open the door to more and more genetic patents, involving ‘alien’ life forms, etc., which could lead to the loss of biodiversity.


Crikey, this is going to take a lot of explaining … so keep taking a breather! I’ve written a series of articles, packed full of original sources, most of which are academic, peer-reviewed articles, and are freely available online. I’ll begin here with a short overview of my forthcoming articles about the connection between the ronascam, the vaccines, and the control of genetics.

Ronavax Rundown – a quick guide to the ronavax and what is said to be in them.
A Guide to the Ronavax – Understanding the Experimental Coronavirus Vaccines – more detail about the types of ronavax winning the race, who is making them, and how they work.
Gates’ way to genetic control? Here comes the EA Swine Flu! The main selling point of genvax is their super-quick turnaround time – just give the vax makers the genetic sequence, and they can whip up a ‘cure’ in no time. And it could be claimed the vector is the same and has been trialled, so all that’s needed is to SHARE the data globally so they can design some new genetic code for a vaccine, and save the world from the new swine flu.
Ronavax Roulette – Potential problems with the corona-virus vaccines – the potential ill effects of the vaccines, as suggested by the World Health Organization, and by geneticists themselves; a look at previous trials and what went wrong when using much the same platforms, including the deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ashanthi DeSilva, and the shocking consequences of the TeGenero incident; molecular adjuvants.
WHO’s in Charge of Biodiversity? Biotech means messing with DNA in so many ways, but has been scuppered thus far by the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols. This includes patents involving genetics. Even countries who are not signatories are restricted by the Protocols when it involves a relationship with a country that is a signatory. The WHO is now claiming a link between health and the environment. And did Bill Gates try to influence the CBD about gene drives in 2017?
Protein shame – the darkest side of biotechnology; the rise of so-called therapeutics and so-called food based on proteins. The future being planned for us involves food replacement (as detailed by Ice Age Farmer) from upcycled chicken and grains to proteins produced in bioreactors, such as Gates’ fake meat and breast milk. Some biotech industries rely on animal cruelty, questionable abortions, and the lust for young blood and tissue in the quest for regeneration.
Ronavax – understanding synthetic biology and XNA – which scientists also call ‘alien DNA’ because it is ‘not of this world’ and the potential reprogramming of our physical reality. Plus a look at the use of XNA in gene therapy; for instance, the mRNA used in the ronavax is almost real, but not quite – it uses nucleotide analogues for parts of the code that’s created. There is also a push to use XNA as a ‘genetic firewall’ against viruses, as it is said this would be safer than using gentech based purely on natural DNA.




Julie Beal is a UK-based independent researcher who has been studying the globalist agenda for more than 20 years, focusing on a wide range of information around Agenda 21, Communitarianism, Ethics, Bioscience, and much more.

[TonyGosling]

The Covid Deception
September 28, 2020 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article
The Covid Deception

Paul Craig Roberts
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/28/the-covid-deception/


We have been deceived by public health authorities about Covid, partly from public authorities’ ignorance of the virus, its spread and treatment, but mainly on purpose.

One reason we were intentionally deceived by public health authorities, and continue to be deceived by them, is to create a market for a Covid vaccination. There are billions of dollars of profits in this, and Big Pharma wants them. The financial connections between public health authorities and Big Pharma means that WHO, NIH, and CDC also desire mass vaccinations. If there are not enough people scared out of their wits to voluntarily seek vaccination, the chances are vaccinations will be made mandatory or your ability to travel, and so forth, will be made dependent on being vaccinated.

Another intentional reason for our deception is the Covid threat justifies voting by mail from the safety of one’s home. Voting by mail means that no winner can be declared on election night. The mail-in votes will have to be counted as they come in. The delay in declaring an election winner allows time for more propaganda that Trump has (1) fraudently rigged his reelection or (2) has lost and won’t step down. As the presstitutes speak with one orchestrated voice, whether Trump wins or not will be buried in reports that he lost and refuses to step down or that he won by fraud.

Even if Trump survives the color revolution planned for him, he will be under attack as an illegitimate president just as he was during his first term when he was allegedly elected by “Russian interference.” This will suffice to prevent a renewal of his attack on the Globalist Establishment—listen to his first inaugural address—and again sideline his desire to serve peace by reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia, a policy that deprives the military/security complex of its valuable enemy.

As presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan learned, reducing tensions with Russia threatens the budget and power of the military/security complex that President Eisenhower warned Americans against. This complex has more power than the president of the United States. As no one would any longer believe another “lone assassin” explanation, Trump is being assassinated with false accusations and a color revolution. For awhile Trump used Twitter to refute the false accusations, but now the President of the United States is censored by Twitter.

When the color revolution strikes, Trump will not be able to communicate with the American people through print, TV, NPR, or social media. There will only be charges against Trump, and no answers from him.

The Democrats are claiming that as the Postmaster General is appointed by Trump, he will rig the mail-in votes by not delivering votes from blue states. Yet polls show that the vast majority of Democrats are voting by mail and that hardly any Republicans are. This is because the postal union is a public-sector union and belongs to the Democrats. The postal workers already have their instructions: deliver no votes from red areas. Obviously, no Democrats would vote by mail if they thought the Postmaster General had any control over mail delivery. The Republicans know that the postal union will not deliver their votes and are voting in person. ( Thousands of undelivered, unopened votes from 2018 have been found in a trash dump–
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/exclusive-california-man-find s-thousands-unopened-ballots-garbage-dumpster-workers-quickly-try-cove r-photos/ ).

This should mean that on election night Trump will have a tremendous victory, but the delay to count the mail-in votes gives the Democrats the time needed to figure out how large the mail-in vote has to be to win or contest the election.

It is not only mail-in voting but also absentee ballots that don’t get delivered: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/wisconsin-authorities-investigate-ab sentee-ballots-found-ditch-fbi-probes-discarded-pro?utm_campaign=&utm_ content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=z h_newsletter

A third reason for the intentional misrepresentation of the Covid threat is to build the growing police state on more intrusions into private life. The public health threat is used to mandate unconstitutional intrusions that close private businesses or force them to operate at 50 percent capacity, thus driving them into bankruptcy and destroying the lifework of people in the name of public health. The threat is also used to accustom the public to obey mandates to wear masks that provide zero protection. Although opposition to this harmful policy is rising in the US and is strong in Germany and the UK, the fear of Covid that has been indoctrinated has caused most populations to behave as lemmings. People are being trained to obey edicts that harm them.

Now, let’s look at the misrepresentation of the Covid Threat itself.

Many medical professionals have shown, with evidence, that the Covid threat has been greatly overstated. According to the CDC’s own data, of the alleged 200,000 Americans killed by Covid, only 9,000 actually were. The remainder had 2.6 co-morbidities that in fact killed them. The CDC reports that in only 6% of the reported Covid deaths was Covid the only cause. For 94% of the Covid deaths, there were on average 2.6 comorbidities or additional causes of death–https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbcl id=IwAR0LhME5kaVDj5hGFZ-G5ypGdMDaGlkPi0DF8aDKL_bUDi0hJsN_Fq5zPUQ#Comor bidities

( Examples of comorbidities: https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1308045036391727104 ).

The CDC concludes that the initial fatality rates were overestimated. If you have the virus, the CDC reports the survival rate by age group. As I read the report, the percentages are all Covid deaths including those with an average of 2.6 comorbidities.

Age Group Probability of Survival

0-19: 99.997%
20-49: 99.98%
50-69: 99.5%
70+: 94.6%

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/new-cdc-estimates-fatality-rate-covi d-19-drops-again-and-may-surprise-you?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohe dge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

In addition to existing morbidities, many who died from Covid died from the ventilators or from being denied HCQ treatment. HCQ, a safe and certain cure, was demonized by public health officials in alliance with Big Pharma and the presstitutes, because it is inexpensive and in the way of vaccine profits. If there is a cure, there is no need for a vaccine that some experts believe will be more dangerous than Covid itself. (Doctors in Florida claim to have found a second cure–https://bgr.com/2020/09/26/coronavirus-cure-icam-protocol-flori da/ )

The Covid threat is being kept alive by the presstitutes and public health officials until a vaccine can be developed. The latest claim is that the return of the young to colleges has reignited the contagation and spreading it to the adult population in a second wave. This “threat” is an orchestrated hoax. According to the data, the 48,299 Covid-19 cases reported at 37 US universities are associated with only two hospitalizations and zero deaths–https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/scam-48299-covid-19- cases-37-us-universities-2-hospitalizations-zero-deaths-likely-killed- dog/

There is talk of returning to lockdowns and more stringent mask requirements. All of this is to keep people, especially the elderly, frightened and supportive of vaccination. Proper testing of the vaccine is suspended in an effort to rush it to market before Covid disappears ( https://www.rt.com/news/501523-western-pharma-vaccines-rush-hypocrisy/  ).

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer for Big Pharma giant Pfizer says that the pandemic is over and that the Covid test produces “false positives” and does not indicate infection with Covid. Dr. Yeadon said that we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, and a civil liberties policy on “what may well be completely fake data on this coronavirus.” According to Dr.Yeadon, a “second wave” and “any government case for lockdowns, given the well-known principles of epidemiology, will be entirely manufactured” ( https://hubpages.com/politics/Pfizer-Chief-Science-Officer-Second-Wave -Based-on-Fake-Data-of-False-Positives-for-New-Cases-Pandemic-is-Over ).

It is clear that the Covid threat was overestimated at great cost–https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/23/covid-19-threat-was -greatly-overestimated-at-huge-cost/ . The Belgian medical profession has demanded a halt to the Covid propaganda–https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/09/18/belgian-medic al-profession-demands-a-halt-to-covid-pandemic-propaganda/

Of course Big Pharma and its shills such as Fauci, Redfield, and the presstitutes, will continue to keep the “Covid Crisis” alive as it is essential to Big Pharma’s vaccine profits, the Democrats’ color revolution against President Trump, and the training of populations to accept more government control over their lives.

Share this page

[TonyGosling]

Parliament must take back control of Covid laws

The consequences of taking away liberty to protect public health have been devastating to our society and economy

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/26/parliament-must-t ake-back-control-covid-laws/

To prevent harm, liberty is routinely constrained. Even great heroes of liberal thought such as Friedrich Hayek teach that fundamental liberties can be suspended to preserve freedom in the long run. So I acquiesced in the fast passage of the Coronavirus Act in the grave situation of the time. Ministers evidently required broad powers to respond swiftly and efficiently to the reasonable worst case scenario we faced.

Today, 100 Acts of Parliament have enabled 242 statutory instruments related to the disease. Rapid, repeat amendment and revocation have been commonplace. According to The Telegraph, coronavirus rules controlling how people live their lives have changed almost 200 times since March. Fines are hefty, but who can keep up?

Covid-19 remains a dangerous disease for those vulnerable to it but it is now clear the position is not as catastrophic as feared. It is no longer appropriate to curtail our freedoms by ministerial decree with only retrospective approval by Parliament, often after rules have been amended or repealed. Doubtless ministers have acted in good faith, but today’s is not a fit legal environment for a democratic and free society.

Parliament must take back control.

We need a system which meets the joint ambitions of the Government and Parliament for prompt and effective action, with few opportunities for mischief and yet prior parliamentary approval before liberties are taken away. It would help improve the law and public consent for it. It would be consistent with our constitutional norms and maintain the principle that delegated legislation is not amendable by Parliament.

While I hope the Government offers change, I will be supporting Sir Graham Brady’s amendment to the renewal of the Coronavirus Act to require parliamentary debate and approval before all major national coronavirus measures come into effect.

The consequences of taking away liberty to protect public health have been devastating to our society and economy by any standard. We must not now make a bad situation worse as we look to our future: we cannot spend our way out of this contraction, deficit or debt.

We must now unleash the private sector to grow. In a report by GENN released last week, Shanker Singham, Lars Karlsson and Daniel Gottschald argue Governments have a clear choice: to pull up their drawbridges, interfere in markets and pursue protectionist policies for passing short-term headlines. Or they can focus instead on the bigger prize – long-term economic resilience and good governance so businesses can flourish: embracing free trade, maintaining competitive markets, strengthening property rights and rejecting isolationism, interventionism and protectionism.

The UK, and all good governments, must take the free market path if we are to have any chance of securing our future.

Persistent chatter of possible tax increases and increased fiscal stimulus is dangerous when we are at the historic limits of taxation. Now is the time to accelerate trade flows, to become more competitive and to open our economy to investment, not to distort our society with spending we cannot afford.

To get our economy back on track, we need global leadership in great economic governance through Prosperity Zones like the City of London Corporation or the Dubai International Financial Zone. With a network of global trade superhighways between London and the world’s economic powerhouses such as New York, the UAE and Singapore, we can create faster flows of goods, services and people, enabling a flourishing UK.

No one is better placed to deliver this economic transformation for the better than Rishi Sunak. His clear determination to combine fearless principle with pragmatism was revealed when he set the freeport agenda in a think tank paper. This week, he set a new tone of resolve and optimism. Boris was wise to make Rishi Chancellor: we need now his full capacity to innovate and inspire.

Over 90 per cent of global growth will soon come from outside the EU. We have secured an improved trade deal with Japan. We should shortly secure free trade agreements with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. The UK will begin accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. We not only have a thousand-year opportunity to change the world, we are seizing it.

Free trade and competitive markets, eliminating market distortions and opening economies to competition will kickstart the world economy with the UK as a global beacon of freedom, free trade and prosperity. These are the historic principles which made us great.

But they rest on parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Please Boris, reach a deal with Sir Graham Brady to put Parliament where it belongs: right with you.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

EXCLUSIVE: 'Inhumane, degrading, inexplicable': Britain's Covid care home policies 'violated the fundamental human rights of vulnerable elderly residents', Amnesty International report finds

EXCLUSIVE: UK Government's pandemic policies 'violated the fundamental human rights of vulnerable older people in care', Amnesty report claims
Measures exposed elderly residents to Covid then blocked them from care

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8801287/Coronavirus-UK-Care -home-policies-exposed-residents-virus-BLOCKED-medical-care.html

'Care homes were being turned into hospices, and being asked to manage deaths instead of managing life.'

The combined result: official figures show there were 11,800 fewer care home residents admitted to hospital during March and April, compared with previous years. And of the 18,562 residents of care homes in England who died with Covid-19, 13,844 died in the homes themselves.

One emergency medicine senior consultant – who asked to remain anonymous, as their NHS Trust is blocking doctors from speaking to journalists about the pandemic and threatening them with suspension if they do – called the situation 'horrific'.

They added: 'A DNAR specifically relates to giving CPR – it should not influence whether or not a person receives hospital treatment, or even intensive care. It is absolutely appalling that political influence has led to this misinterpretation, and it needs urgent investigation.'

[TonyGosling]

Boris Panicked and U-Turned Over Lockdown After Seeing Neil Ferguson’s Projections

https://lockdownsceptics.org/#boris-panicked-and-u-turned-over-lockdow n-after-seeing-neil-fergusons-projections

“I see death in your future – a lot of death.”

The Mail on Sunday is serialising an explosive new biography of Boris by Tom Bower that claims Boris was panicked into imposing a full national lockdown after Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance were presented with Neil Ferguson’s apocalyptic predictions at a meeting of SAGE.

Bower tells how a critical meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) on February 25th was presented with the ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ from Professor Ferguson under which 80% of Britons would be infected and the death-toll would be 510,000 people.

The author writes: “This was an improvement on Ferguson’s earlier assessment that between 2% and 3% would die – up to 1.5 million deaths. Even with mitigation measures, he said, the death toll could be 250,000 and the existing intensive care units would be overwhelmed eight times over.

“Neither Vallance nor Whitty outrightly challenged Ferguson’s model or predictions. By contrast, in a series of messages from Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who would correctly predict the pandemic’s initial trajectory, Ferguson was warned that he had overestimated the potential death toll by ‘ten to 12 times’….

The book reveals how shortly before the national lockdown, on March 16th, Ferguson forecast that one third of the over-80s who were infected would be hospitalised, of which 71% would need intensive care using ventilators.

This exaggerated prediction – that hospitals would be overwhelmed by at least eight times the usual admittance rate – made the lockdown all but inevitable.

Worth reminding people again that Professor Ferguson’s estimates of the impact of previous viral outbreaks have been almost comically inaccurate. In 2001, he predicted that foot and mouth disease could kill up to 50,000 people. It ended up killing less than 200. In 2005, he told the Guardian that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final death toll from avian flu strain A/H5N1 was 440. And in 2009, a Government estimate based on one of Ferguson’s models estimated the likely death toll from swine flu at 65,000. In fact, it was 457.

Why did Boris take the predictions of this serial doom-monger so seriously?

[TonyGosling]

Published on 23 March 2020:
Broadcast content relating to the Coronavirus
We recognise that licensees will want to broadcast content relating to the Coronavirus and that dissemination of accurate and up-to-date information to audiences will be essential during the current situation. However, we remind all broadcasters of the significant potential harm that can be caused by material relating to the Coronavirus. This could include:
• Health claims related to the virus which may be harmful.
• Medical advice which may be harmful.
• Accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it.
We will be prioritising our enforcement of broadcast standards in relation to the above issues. In these cases, it may be necessary for Ofcom to act quickly to determine the outcome in a proportionate and transparent manner, and broadcasters should be prepared to engage with Ofcom on short timescales.
Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the imposition of a statutory sanction.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/193075/Note-to-br oadcasters-Coronavirus.pdf

[TonyGosling]

Dr Vernon Coleman Debunking the Biggest Lies They Tell (RE-EDITED VERSION)
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/debunking-the-biggest-lies-they-tell-re -edited-version_zXTlEHuaGKbArqC.html

download
https://brandnewtube.com/upload/videos/2020/10/GE1yxZSVx1jJC1eIHOKn_06 _af397aa95f20638de837ad6d2687eb1b_video_480p_converted.mp4

[TonyGosling]

Friday night fun
POSTED FRIDAY 9TH OCTOBER 2020 HECTOR DRUMMOND
Here’s a video of the UK’s Covid Marshals in action.
https://hectordrummond.com/2020/10/09/friday-night-fun/

https://hectordrummond.com/hec_wpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Goodi es-Mirth_Inspectors_edit4.mp4


'Goodies Rule - OK?'
https://www.clivebanks.co.uk/Goodies/Goodiesruleok.htm

by Tim Brooke-Taylor,
Bill Oddie
and Graeme Garden The Goodies
In 1961, Graeme, Tim and Bill play at the ‘Cavern Club’ as ‘The Bootles’, only to be booed off stage; however, their act inspires several men in the audience, who nick their songs and look, and go on to become stars. Graeme, Tim and Bill continue to fail at success, despite their best attempts as ‘The Confirmed Bachelors’, ‘The Extremes’, etc. , and by 1975, they are living on skid row Graeme all the other has been entertainers, who have also seen their acts ripped off by newcomers. Undaunted, Graeme hatches a plan to create the greatest supergroup ever by taking all the best bits of successful stars, and then hires Wembley Stadium for their concert. Fearing a riot, the police take over the audience, and promptly go loony at the Goodies’ performance of ‘Wild Thing’, mobbing the stage! Finally hitting the big time, Tim, Bill and Graeme soon take every spot in the Top Ten, and then get presented with O.B.E.s by the Queen at a very water-logged garden party. However, as the trio rake in the money, the nation goes into debt, forcing the Prime Minister to nationalise the Goodies, take all their cash and then order them to cheer up the country. Tim, Bill and Graeme release a new song, ‘The Bounce’, but that proves so infectious that no-one can stop dancing to it; soon the whole country is bouncing to disaster, the P.M. kills himself out of desperation, and election is called. The Goodies enter the running, but unfortunately the nation has had enough, and they vote a shop dummy into power instead, heralding ‘Britain’s Day of Gloom’: Parliament decrees it an offense for anyone to enjoy themselves, enforcing the order with horse-backed Mirth Inspectors who beat up anyone having any fun. Deciding to rebel, Tim, Graeme and Bill hide out in Sherwood Forest, acting as outlaws who bring entertainment to all; they then go on to form ‘The Unmentionables’, suited mobsters dispensing custard pies to anyone without a sense of humour. Rallying an army of old entertainers, Tim, Bill and Graeme go on to overthrow the government; Bill decides to bring in a puppet government, led by Sooty, Sweep and all their little friends – but the puppets have other ideas, and they take over the country…

Bill Oddie (Bill), Tim Brooke-Taylor (Tim), Graeme Garden (Graeme), Michael Barratt (Himself [‘Nationwide’ Presenter]), Tony Blackburn (Himself), Sue Lawley (Herself), Patrick Moore (Himself), Eddie Waring (Himself), Terry Wogan (Himself), Corbet Woodall (Newsreader), Roland MacLeod (Robert Mackenzie), Barry Cryer (Newsreel Narrator [Voice]), Sheila Steafel, Norman Mitchell and Ronald Russell

Produced and Directed by Jim Franklin
Music by Bill Oddie and Michael Gibbs

TX (BBC 2):
21st December 1974

Notes:
*Featuring Tim, Bill and Graeme

*This episode was shown as an double-length Christmas special

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Save lives, scrap Serco now
https://weownit.org.uk/save-lives-scrap-serco-now

Contact tracing is vital if we’re going to get out of lockdown safely, hug our loved ones again and save lives.

But instead of putting local public health experts in charge, health secretary Matt Hancock has handed over responsibility to Serco - a private outsourcing company that has already put lives at risk.

It has now been revealed that Serco's CEO said he hopes it will “cement the position of the private sector” in our NHS.* Don't let him get away with this.

Matt Hancock, end Serco’s role in contact tracing in England now. Put local public health teams and local health services (including GPs and NHS labs) back in charge of testing and contact tracing in the community.

Enter email to sign *

Photo of Serco building
35,166Target: 51000
Last signature: Richard Worcester, 27 min 17 sec ago

This petition is supported by: Allyson Pollock, Clinical Professor of Public Health and director of the Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science, John Ashton, former director of public health, and the following organisations:

Defend our NHS Wirral logo
New Economics Foundation logo
Keep Our NHS Public logo

Just Treatment logo
Doctors for the NHS logo
http://999callfornhs.org.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/nursesuniteduk/
https://healthcampaignstogether.com
https://www.nhscampaign.org/
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/
https://www.pcs.org.uk/
https://www.psychotherapyandcounsellingunion.co.uk/
Upper Calder Valley Contact Tracing and Support
www.tuc.org.uk
https://www.unison.org.uk/
Contact tracing is vital if we’re going to get out of lockdown safely, hug our loved ones again and save lives.

*Serco's CEO Rupert Soames has now said he wants to “cement the position of the private sector” in our NHS. Junior health minister Edward Argar has a history with Serco - he previously worked as the company's Head of Public Affairs. Don't let them get away with this.

Here's the background on how doing it the Serco way is doomed to fail, and how we could be doing it better in public hands.

Serco is already failing to deliver

Despite being in control of the system for mere months, Serco has already proven itself inadequate.

The head of the track and trace scheme has said that the contact tracing system won’t be fully operational until September or October. The Serco CEO himself doesn't seem convinced it will work either. The Guardian revealed yesterday that he wrote in an email: “If it succeeds … it will go a long way in cementing the position of the private sector companies in the public sector".

As of June 3, Serco's tracers had contacted just 1,749 people, of the 4,456 confirmed Covid-19 cases that had been reported to the scheme.

Staff working on the track and trace scheme have described themselves sitting idle, without contact from their supervisors, with one claiming they worked for 38 hours without making a single phone call, instead spending the time watching Netflix. Staff are paid near minimum wage and have had minimum training - a recipe for disaster.

Serco has failed many times before

But Serco's failure is nothing new. The company has a long running history of not delivering to expectations.

Serco was fined £23 million after admitting responsibility for fraud over its electronic tagging scandal, in which it charged the Ministry of Justice for tagging people who were either dead, in jail, or had left the country.

Serco was embroiled in a scandal after giving just one hour's training to staff working on its breast cancer hotline.

Serco admitted to falsifying data in one of its out-of-hours GP services in Cornwall a staggering 252 times.

Serco were also found guilty 'after a company it set up overcharged NHS hospitals millions' as part of pathology service in 2014.

Serco have been fined £750,000 for a worker's death and putting lives at risk before. See here the deaths of workers and members of the public in contracts operated by Serco, 2006- 2014.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Serco's failures are innumerable.

Serco's role is undermining the health service

All of this - taken together with the wider privatisation of the health service - has a devastating effect on our NHS. Handing over huge parts of health provision to private companies does nothing but cement the loss of resources from public health after a decade of austerity.

What’s the solution?

In other countries - from Germany to South Korea to Vietnam - life has started up again because the government can effectively pinpoint each case and identify their contacts. That's down to an effective track and trace system.

While Serco has no expertise to draw on, local authorities by contrast have been doing track and trace for years and understand the actions that need to be taken to stamp out flare-ups. They know their communities, have their confidence and can support people to isolate. The track and trace scheme should be handed back to the people who know how to do it - the public sector at a local level.

What do others say?

Danny Mortimer, deputy chief executive of the NHS Confederation, responded to the launch of the NHS Test and Trace service, saying:

“Much has been made of the importance of the app, but while its rollout is still some weeks off, this will not be the make-or-break element. Local involvement is really the key, and we are hopeful this will reduce the risk of a second wave of infections, thus saving lives and protecting the NHS.

“It is now absolutely critical that any problems are identified and ironed out as quickly as possible so that all parts of the programme can be delivered, and that the government follows through on its promises of testing expansion. We would also call for more detail on how the impact of the 14-day self-isolation requirement can be mitigated in the health and care workforce.”


About Why public ownership? Our public services News Act now
We Own It is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (company number 8239094).

[TonyGosling]

Important Viral Update for UK - but applies to many countries!

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeqGtyptonI

[TonyGosling]

The Covid-19 Numbers Game: The “Second Wave” is Based on Fake Statistics
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-covid-19-numbers-game-the-second-wav e-is-based-on-fake-statistics/5725003

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 10, 2020
Theme: Media Disinformation, Police State & Civil Rights, Science and Medicine

“Red zones”, travel bans, quarantines, “red lists”. A “Second Wave” has been announced.

The fear campaign has gone into overdrive. Millions of people are lining up for Covid-19 testing.

Drastic state measures are contemplated, including restrictions on social gatherings, marriages, funerals, the closing down of restaurants and bars, the outright paralysis of civil society.

Coming to the rescue of our citizens. What is the justification?

This article focusses on the “Numbers Game”. How statistics and “estimates” are used by politicians to justify the closure of the national economy and the derogation of fundamental civil rights.

From the onset of the Covid crisis in January 2020, far-reaching decisions taken by the WHO and national governments have been justified by citing “estimates” of the Covid-19 disease as well “statistics” pointing to a Worldwide spread of a new deadly coronavirus originating in Wuhan, China.

Scientific analysis confirms that these estimates of “confirmed cases” tabulated by the WHO and the CDC are flawed. The tests do not detect or identify the virus. The figures are often manipulated to justify political decisions. Moreover, official studies confirming the identify of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have not been released.

Both the concepts as well as the test results do not point to the existence of a Worldwide Covid-19 pandemic. Nor do they justify social distancing, the face mask and the closing down of the global economy.

Corruption prevails at the highest levels of government as well within the upper echelons of the United Nations system. The entire state apparatus as well as inter-governmental organizations are controlled by powerful financial interests.

Millions of people are now being tested which contributes to increasing the number of so-called “confirmed” Covid positive cases Worldwide. These statistics are then carefully tabulated. The governments need those numbers to justify their totalitarian measures.

What’s the Big Lie? What’s the Smoking Gun?

SARS-CoV-2 is NOT A “KILLER VIRUS”. The fear campaign has no scientific basis. (See analysis below)

The standard RT-PCR test used to “detect” the insidious Virus, “cannnot identify the Virus”.

The governments which claim “to be protecting us” are using meaningless and manipulated statistics to justify the imposition of Covid-19 “Code Red”.

The Virus

In early January 2020, a so-called novel coronavirus entitled SARS-CoV-2 , which causes “coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19” was identified. It was given a similar name to an existing coronavirus, namely SARS-CoV, i.e. the beta coronavirus that causes the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

According to renowned immunologist Dr. Beda Stadler of Bern University,

“this so-called novel virus is very strongly related to SARS-1 as well to as other beta-coronaviruses which make us suffer every year in the form of colds.”

Stadler also begs the question: Is this a new virus or the mutation of an existing virus, “similar to the corona beta cold viruses”.

According to a recent study by Tsan-Yuk Lam, Na Jia, et al (Joint Institute of Virology, Shantou and Hong Kong universities):

“…the [SARS-2] virus [is] most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) (Nature, April 2020).

Moreover, the studies of Dr. Anthony Fauci et al in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as the WHO acknowledge that Covid-19 has similar features to seasonal influenza (Viruses A and B). (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, September 2020)

What these scientific statements convey is that SARS-2 (which causes Covid-19) is not a killer virus. In fact quite the opposite.

But neither the governments nor the media have reassured public opinion.

The fear campaign not only prevails, it is gaining momentum.

At this juncture of the Covid-19 crisis, governments are envisaging the launching of extreme measures in response to a so-called “Second Wave”. In turn, several media are now spreading stories that this Second Wave is comparable to the 1918 Spanish Flu:

At this point in the coronavirus pandemic, with more than 32 million infected and more than 980,000 dead worldwide, describing this time as “unprecedented” may sound like nails on a chalkboard. This pandemic, however, actually isn’t without precedent: The last time we dealt with a pandemic so mysterious, uncontained and far-reaching was in 1918, when influenza devastated populations around the globe. (CNN, September 25, 2020)

Flashback to March 11, 2020: The Launching of the WHO Pandemic

On March 11, the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were 18,000 confirmed cases and 4291 deaths out of a total World population outside China of the order of 6.4 billion people. What do these “statistics” tell you? Most of these confirmed “positive cases” were estimated using the RT-PCR test which does not detect or identify the virus. (See our analysis below)

Immediately following the March 11 WHO announcement the fear campaign went into high gear. Confinement instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations. The outright closing down of national economies was upheld as a means to resolving a public health crisis.

Politicians are the instruments of powerful financial interests. Was this far-reaching decision justified as a means to combating the Virus? Did the “numbers” (of confirmed cases) justify a Worldwide pandemic?

Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large number countries, entire sectors of the World economy were destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises were driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

In some countries famines have erupted. The social impacts of these measures are devastating.

The devastating health impacts (mortality, morbidity) of these measures including the destabilization of the system of national health care (in numerous countries) far surpass those attributed to Covid-19.

The Rush to Get Tested

In a large number of countries, simultaneously, people are encouraged to get tested which in turn contributes to increasing exponentially the number of so-called confirmed Covid-19 “positive cases”. Facilities are set up all over the country.



Screenshot, Daily Express

Panic prevails. national authorities establish testing facilities, do it yourself testing kits, etc.

People stand in line to get tested. The estimates are often manipulated.

In England “People stand in drive-thru lines as testing centres hit capacity”



CBC News Screenshot



Screeshot Reuters. Test at German airports

With increasing numbers, as of early June, the health authorities in several countries have pointed to an imminent “Second Wave”.

What is the intent of the Second Wave?

To postpone “normalization”? To prevent the reopening of national economies? To trigger more unemployment?

Currently, national economies have partially reopened. This Second Wave constitutes the “second phase” of a bankruptcy program, targeting the services economy, air transport, the tourism industry, retail trade, etc.

Social distancing prevails. Schools, colleges and universities are closed down, social gatherings and family reunions are prohibited.

The face mask is reimposed despite its negative health impacts. We are told that it is all for a good cause. Combat the transmission of the virus.

These far-reaching decisions which derogate fundamental civil rights, are based on the “estimates” of Covid-19 positive cases, not to mention the manipulation of the test results.

Video; The Covid-19 Numbers Game with Michel Chossudovsky


The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR)

The standard test used to detect / identify SARS-2 around the World is The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Test (RT-PCR) which is used to estimate and tabulate the number of confirmed positive Covid-19 cases. (This is not the only test used. Observations below pertain solely to the standard PCR).

According to Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR test:

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment.”

The PCR test was never intended to identify the virus.

“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear” (see also Lancet report)

The standard PCR Test applied in relation to Covid-19 does not detect or identify the virus. What it detects are fragments of several viruses. According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

According to Dr. Pascal Sacré, “these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus”

What this means is that the PCR test cannot detect or identify SARS-CoV-2. What it detects are fragments, which suggests that a standard “PCR positive” cannot be equated to a so-called Covid-19 Positive.

The PCR test will pick up fragments of several viruses including corona viruses as well as influenza (flu viruses A and B)

While SARS-2 which causes Covid-19 is considered to be similar to SARS-CoV-1, it has similar symptoms to seasonal influenza (Viruses A and B). Moreover, some of its milder symptoms are similar to those of the common cold corona viruses. According to the CDC: “Sometimes, respiratory secretions are tested to figure out which specific germ is causing your symptoms. If you are found to be infected with a common coronavirus (229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1), that does not mean you are infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus.”

According to the CDC there are “seven [human] coronaviruses that can infect people” the first four of which (alpha, beta) are associated with the common cold.

229E (alpha coronavirus)

NL63 (alpha coronavirus)

OC43 (beta coronavirus)

HKU1 (beta coronavirus)

MERS-CoV (the beta coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, or MERS)

SARS-CoV (the beta coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS)

SARS-CoV-2 (the novel coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19)

What is Covid-19, SARS-2. How is it Tested? How is It Measured? The Fear Campaign Has No Scientific Basis
In the above context, what this means is that a PCR test will pick up fragments of corona as well as influenza viruses. It will not be able to identify individual viruses including SARS-2.

“Fragments of viruses positive” does not mean “SARS-2 positive” (or Covid-19 Positive). The PCR test may pick up fragments of influenza viruses (A, B) as well as common cold beta coronaviruses (e.g. OC43, HKU1).

In other words, the published estimates of COVID-19 positive (resulting from the standard PCR test) in support of the Second Wave hypothesis are often misleading and cannot be used to measure the spread of SARS-2.
.
There are currently, at the time of writing (according to WHO statistics) almost 33 million so-called “confirmed cases” and 1 million deaths. Are these alleged “Covid-19 positive” estimates which are in large part based on the RT-PCR test reliable? Global Research has published numerous reports on theses issues.
.
In addition to the issue of false positive (which has been amply documented), a person with a bad cold or a flu, could be categorized as SARS-2 (Covid-19) positive, allegedly a dangerous virus.
What governments have done is to give the PCR positive test a single label namely Covid-19, when in fact the PCR positive test could be the result of other viruses including those pertaining to influenza or coronavirus common cold, which (according to the CDC) have similar symptoms to Covid-19.

Once the Covid-19 Positive label is established and accepted, it is then subject to numerous forms of manipulation, not to mention the falsification of death certificates.

These fake figures are then used to sustain the fear campaign and justify political decisions by corrupt national governments.

The public is led to believe that there is a “Second Wave” and the government is there to save lives through social distancing, the face mask, the closing down of economic activity, the paralysis of the national health system and the closing down of schools and universities.

There is a circular causal relationship. The more people get tested as a result of the fear campaign, the more PCR positive cases. …

It’s a Big Lie.

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no moving backwards.

Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

[TonyGosling]

RISE ABOVE: 'COVID-1984' Part 5 (Track & Trace)

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qoj-YSyzAk

RISE ABOVE: 'COVID-1984' Part 5 (Track & Trace)

[TonyGosling]

Moon of Alabama – It’s time to say goodbye…in which we debunk a “debunking”

Kit Knightly https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/16/__trashed-2/ Oct 16, 2020

Bernhard, the proprietor of alternate-news site Moon of Alabama, has taken it upon himself to “fact-check” one of our many Covid-related articles. It was done without informing us of his intent, or indeed offering us a right of reply.

Whilst this is regrettable – and highly unprofessional – I do understand, given the nature and quality of the article, why he would neither want us to read it, nor respond to it.

Nevertheless, read it I did, and respond we must.

PREAMBLE

I would like to start with a few words of regret, mourning for the age of solidarity now passed. Until very recently I had believed – perhaps “hoped” is the better word – that all of us in the “alternate news” sphere were more or less on the same side. After all, OffGuardian and MoA have a long history – continuing to this day – of agreement.

On Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Russia-gate, Assange and MH17 our opinions and coverage have always almost totally aligned. This pattern is solid up to this very day, with the obvious attempted coup Belarus forming the most prominent recent example.

I would hope that such numerous strokes of agreement – accompanying as they do a broadly similar world-view – would therefore be able to comfortably encompass such diversions of opinion as are sure to manifest between even the most like-minded of people. I had assumed that any such conflicts of interpretation which did eventually arise would be handled with, if not amiable good humour, at least passing civility.

Sadly, that is not the case, and whilst “B” is not noted in the alt-media world for either his good humour or social skills, it is nonetheless sad to find a former ally has become so willing an enemy. Disagreeing is one thing, but publicly attacking our intentions and honesty is quite another.

Secondly, I would like to make note of certain contradictions – not only from MoA, but across a lot of those who consider themselves “independent journalists” or “alternative news” or “alt-media” or whatever their preferred nomenclature. Specifically the contradiction of picking and choosing when and how to trust the mainstream.

Many of these people devote their entire careers, if not their lives, to debunking and contradicting the mainstream media – and yet, when a story appears with which they agree, which reinforces their preconceived ideas or bolsters their own particular biases – they gladly accept it. MoA’s “fact-check” is a prime example. I have to say I fundamentally disagree with this approach.

The modern media is not a machine you can trust. Not ever. It is a construction built to control and corral opinion. To shuffle the public mind around a game-board they do not know they are on, based on rules they must never be allowed to understand. It serves no other function. It doesn’t “tell the truth sometimes”; it isn’t “occasionally trustworthy”. It’s a buffet of poisoned courses, selectively stacking your plate to suit your palate will not spare you the toxic effects. You’ll just smile as you choke.

To choose to believe or disbelieve the media only when it suits your case is as foolish as being entirely oblivious to its nature. Perhaps more foolish, because you cannot hide behind blameless ignorance. You, notoionally, know better.

Scepticism is a lens through which one must examine everything, or nothing. It cannot be put aside lightly when you want to score easy points, or salve your own sense of panic, or you just feel like fitting in for once. To do so is moral cowardice.

Using the mainstream propaganda term “covidiot” is a perfect example. It is the product of the same Deep State-media thinktanks and focus groups that birthed “conspiracy theorist” into the public consciousness. More recently we have seen “Russian bots” and “Assad apologist” and “Kremlin stooge” join these ranks – alongside the ubiquitous “denier”.

These are labels designed to encourage groupthink, to “other” dissenters and stifle intelligent and informed debate. To use them is to debase both yourself and the conversation.

Thirdly, and finally, I would like to add a few words about professionalism, integrity and the ethics of journalism. Journalistic ethics are not really different from the natural decency with which one hopes everyone seeks to comport themselves.

It is unseemly, we can all agree, to attack someone and give them no chance to defend themselves. For example, blocking someone on twitter and continuing to bad-mouth them or their work when they can offer no refutation, is not generally speaking “the done thing”. Likewise, it is basic professional practice that, if you intend to refute someone’s work, you inform them of this. It would usually be considered right to offer them space to reply.

Likewise selectively quote-mining is always considered bad form.

Claiming that “It makes little sense to review and refute the whole mess”, and choosing to “concentrat [sic] on the 6 of the 8 [sic] “Take Home Messages” might seem, at first glance, to be an effort at maintaining brevity. However a more cynical reader might point out that, in doing so, MoA has chosen the only section of the text with no hyperlinked sources.

Throughout the original 5,000 word article there are over 60 linked references, the majority to academic journals and peer-reviewed studies. Bernhard does not refute one of these sources, in fact he doesn’t even acknowledge their existence. Instead choosing to attempt to refute 75% of the article’s conclusions, whilst ignoring 100% of the arguments and facts upon which those conclusions are based.

Lies by omission are poor form, you could even call them the hallmark of hack journalism.

With all that said, let us turn our attention to the task at hand. I will address each of Bernhard’s criticisms in turn, firstly quoting the original article authored by Dr Jeanmonod, then Bernhard’s response, and then my thoughts. Dr Jeanmonod has been informed on MoA’s attack on his work, and has given his blessing to us to make a response; while we don’t speak for him, we hope he can approve.

1. CORONAVIRUSES, COLDS, SARS AND MERS

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

1. Corona viruses are one of the viral agents of the common cold, which, just like the flu, invade the whole planet every year. They cause largely widespread, mostly benign, yearly pandemics of respiratory tract infections.

MoA’s response fits a familiar pattern – a rather pedantic nitpick, and then rather dishonest conclusion.

There are seven distinct corona viruses that infect humans. Four of those can cause the common cold. The infections are generally mild. At times they have more severe consequences like pneumonia. The infection fatality rate for these four corona viruses is estimated to be about 0.1%.

This is broadly speaking true. It also doesn’t, in any way, contradict anything Jeanmonod says.

This, however, is a misleading and irrelevant tangent:

The three other corona viruses, SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 are very different beasts. They cause very severe symptoms in a significant numbers of the infected people. The infection fatality rate for SARS was 9% and for MERS it is even 37%.

Equating SARS and MERS with the other four coronaviruses he already mentioned neglects an important difference: The four “common cold” coronaviruses cause around 15% of the world’s “colds”. That is literally 100s of millions of cases every year. Conversely, there have been only 10,617 officially recognised cases of SARS and MERS combined in over 18 years.

Clearly, Jeanmonod is justified in claiming the vast majority of coronavirus infections as “mostly benign”.

SARS and MERS, themselves already the subject of hysterical “global health scares”, have fatality rates based on such small samples as to make them meaningless. They are suffering from the same problem the Sars-Cov-2 outbreak was suffering from back in spring – we have only hospital admissions to go on. We have only severe case data.

There have been very, very few seroprevalence studies done on these viruses, thus we have no data for how widespread these viruses are. How many asymptomatic infections for SARS or MERS have there been? We don’t know. How many mild cases dismissed as “the flu” or “colds” etc.? We don’t know.

However, even if we accept the high fatality for SARS and MERs, that is irrelevant, which Bernhard himself admits in the next sentence…

The true infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 depends on various circumstances (health service availability, social and medical conditions of the population etc.) but is currently estimated to be around 1%.

Firstly, the fatality rate for Sars-Cov-2 is not 1%. It is substantially lower than that. In May the CDC estimated it to be 0.26%, they then changed it to 0.65%. Dozens of studies have been done all around the globe which roughly confirm 0.2% (the numbers range from 0.08% to 0.3%). According to the WHO’s “best estimate” it’s likely around 0.14%.

But let’s put that aside (we’ll go into it in more detail in point 2) – let us temporarily concede that MoA’s figure is correct – that Sars-Cov-2 has a fatality rate of 1%. Why is he then listing it alongside diseases which have fatality rates between 10 and 37 times higher?

He has conceded that the IFR for Sars-Cov-2 is nothing like as high as the other viruses. Introducing the fatality rates of SARS and MERS is a good example of the Association Fallacy – an attempt to put some large scary numbers into the mix, by claiming an irrelevant connection. All it really does is demonstrate that the Sars-Cov-2 fatality rate is comparatively low.

Summary: The fatality rate of Sars-Cov-2 is much less than 1%, as evidenced by many studies. The fatality rates for SARS and MERS are entirely irrelevant to discussion of Sars-Cov-2.

2. DEATH RATES, SELECTIVE REASONING AND FILLER

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

2. COVID-19, the infection caused by SARS-CoV-2, the current corona mutation, is not more lethal than the flu, with a 0.1-0.2% infection fatality rate.

Bernhard’s response to this is in two halves – firstly a pedantic focus on the word “mutation” and a lot of text about genomes, second an accusation of dishonesty.

This is a. outright nonsense that has no scientific basis and b. a lie.

The paragraphs devoted to waffling about genomes are irrelevant. Viruses mutate very rapidly, for a number of reasons, and it seems undeniably clear that Dr Jeanmonod is using the word “mutation” as shorthand to refer to this seasonal generation of respiratory viruses, that is all.

The accusation of dishonesty is far more serious. He calls Jeanmonod’s claim that Sars-Cov-2 has a fatality rate in line with seasonal flu “a lie”, and claims it is “outright false and easy to refute.”

For some reason best known to himself, he then chooses to ‘refute’ this by doing his own maths using rough, months old data from New York City. Doing this he produces an IFR of 1.29%.

As we discussed above, this is much too high.

The World Health Organization estimated the IFR to be 3.4% back in the Spring. This was an absurdly high number which totally disregarded the possibility of mild or asymptomatic cases. We now know that the majority of infections are symptomless, and the vast majority of those who get symptoms only ever get mildly ill. The corollary of this is the IFR has tumbled.

If Bernhard were being an honest broker on this issue he would, at this point, acknowledge that OffG has been shown to completely right about this. We have been writing that the IFR was inflated and would surely drop since May. Whereas his own predictions relating to IFR have not aged half so well.

Jeanmonod himself links to two studies showing an IFR of 0.2% and 0.1% respectively. At least a dozen other studies around the world have demonstrated similar numbers.

Of course, Bernhard is free to disagree with Jeanmonod’s interpretation, and to pick and choose which evidence he puts weight on and which he does not. But to ignore these data sources and claim the author is lying is incredibly dishonest.

Summary: The 0.1-0.2% fatality rate is based on seroprevelance studies from scientific journals. It is not “a lie”.

3. ON AGE AND CO-MORBIDITIES

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

3. An immense majority (95%) of fatal evolutions happen in old and frail individuals with premorbidities, with an average age of death at or above 80 years old.

Bernhard responded with:

That claim is again an outright lie

I’m going to be charitable and assume that Bernhard’s mistake here is to misread some admittedly ambiguous wording.

He calls the claim “an outright lie”, and proceeds to try and debunk the idea that 95% of Covid19 deaths are over 80 years old, but that is not what Dr Jeanmonod said. The “95%” here refers to having serious comorbidities, not the age. But, as I said, I will cede that this conclusion is ambiguously worded.

Of course, if Bernhard had bothered to tackle the entire article – and not just 6 of the 8 bullet-pointed conclusions – he would know that. Here is the full quote from the body of the text (with sources included):

For example in Italy, 95% of the fatalities happened for patients suffering from one up to three or more pre-existing morbidities, and the mean age of the deceased patients was 82. Such a mean fatality age is very close to the average life expectancy of developed, e.g. European countries (83.6 years for Switzerland).

As you can see, there is no ambiguity here. The “95%” here refers to pre-existing medical conditions, not the ages.

That the vast majority of alleged Covid19 deaths have serious comorbidities is not just limited to the figures from Italy – it has been shown to be the case in UK and the US as well. In fact basically everywhere.

Bernhard does make a claim that these co-morbidities don’t cause death and the virus does. This is unsourced conjecture, and is not in any way verifiable.

What IS verifiable is that government officials all around the world have gone out of their way to point out how loose their definition of “covid death” is, that it has already lead to huge over-counts.

It is also true that the average age of those who allegedly die from/with covid19 is over 80 (you can see a list of average age by country here). Bernhard does not refute this, because he can’t.

Summary: His claim this statement is “a lie” is based on either an accidental misreading of an ambiguously worded sentence, or deliberate quote-mining to take the author’s words out of context. Either way, the original claim is demonstrably true, and sourced to official reports.

4. ON T CELLS, HERD IMMUNITY AND THE “SECOND WAVE”

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

4. Antibody studies, cross immunization with other corona strains and the completion of the death toll curve in many countries are strong evidence that the human population is developing herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2. In this context, a severe “second wave” for SARS-CoV-2 is improbable. We may rather expect a new cold episode from it just like every year, but of regular or even weak intensity thanks to the gained herd immunity.

Bernhard’s response to this is flawed in a few ways. Firstly:

Antibody prevalence even in hard hit place [sic] like New York City is way below the 80% or so that would be needed for some kind of “herd immunity”. In the U.S. and Europe antibody prevalence is in total way less than 10%. The bay area for example has only some 2%. Is the U.S. ready to give 10 times more lives than the 266,000 who have already died of Covid-19 to achieve a only potentially temporary herd immunity?

His figure of 80% exposure for herd immunity is old, and based on flawed modelling which assumed there was no pre-existing mucosal and cellular immunity, this has been shown to be incorrect.

The Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) for any disease is always, at best, a rough estimate and Sars-Cov-2 is no exception. It was stated as 80% back in April, but back then they said the UK would get 500,000 deaths and the IFR was 3.4%. Sweden worked on the model of 60% HIT. An article in Nature suggested it was closer 50%. Another model put it at 43%.

More recent preprints have suggested the herd immunity threshold is closer to 20% or even as low as 10%.

The point is the HIT is not nailed down, and Jeanmonod’s statement is backed up by scientific studies which Bernhard ignores.

Secondly:

Cross immunization with other corona viruses is a conjecture. We have so far no data that shows that there is cross immunity from other viruses that works against SARS-CoV-2.

This is simply completely untrue. There are many papers and studies showing pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells, likely the result of previous coronavirus infections. Here’s 1, 2, 3, 4 of them.

Thirdly:

The “improbable” second wave of Covid 19 is already developing in several European countries. Just take a look at France. And don’t worry. The rise in the still low death toll WILL follow the infection curve with a four weeks lag.

He illustrates this point using a graph of cases from France, insisting that the fatalities will lag but are coming soon (his tone regarding predicting the deaths of 1000s of people, is slightly odd, almost gleeful, but we’re not here discuss his psychology).

What he doesn’t mention is that cases have spiked – not just in France, but the rest of the Western world – ONLY thanks to a huge increase in the number of tests. If you test 100,000s of people, using a test with a known false-positive rate (more on this in point 5), looking for a disease with a high percentage of asymptomatic infections, you will undeniably get a spike in “cases”.

And that’s not actual cases, but “cases”.

You see, before 2020 a “case” of a disease was someone who got sick and developed symptoms. For some reason Covid19 has recently changed that, throwing all previous clinical practice out the window.

Summary: The statement about immunity and antibodies is backed up by several scientific papers, and MoA’s herd immunity threshold is out of date. The “second wave” is likely being generated by huge numbers of tests finding asymptomatic cases and false positives.

5. ON PCR TESTS AND THE CASEDEMIC

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

5. PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 presence does not give any reliable prognostic evidence of its infectious power and lethality. The monitoring of the pandemic state and evolution is given only by the daily evolution of fatalities. In Switzerland as in many other countries, there is no longer any excess mortality attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Positive test rate is low (around 3%), and tests have as always a technical false positive rate and react to inactive viral fragments or to other corona strains.

Since Bernhard’s response to this is refreshingly brief, I will quote it in full:

The author says that to evaluate the state of the pandemic we should follow the number (death) that is known to lag at least four weeks behind infections instead of following the number of new infections per day. That is lunatic. Its driving at high speed while only looking into the rear view mirror. During a highly dynamic pandemic we need current infection data and predictions, not reviews.

Also: SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests DO NOT react to other coronaviruses. The RNA strings they are reacting to are unique to SARS-CoV-2. The tests can not even ‘see’ any other ones.

Before we address the flaws in what Bernhard does say, let’s take a second to focus on what he does not say.

He doesn’t, for example, refute the statement that PCR tests are of almost no diagnostic use. Because he can’t. Because it’s true.

He doesn’t, you may notice, refute that PCR tests have a noteworthy false-positive rate. Because he can’t. Because it’s true.

And he doesn’t, interestingly, refute that there is no longer any appreciable excess mortality. Because he can’t. Because it’s true.

Now, let’s move on to what he does say.

Firstly, his assertion that “new infections per day” is the best way to track the pandemic.

This is seriously flawed in more than one way:

The term “new infections per day” is incorrect. Just because Person A is tested on Monday and Person B is tested on Tuesday does not mean B is a “new infection”, that is absurdly bad logic. If you start widespread testing, testing 10,000s of people every day – you have no way of knowing which infections are “new” and which are old. You could only get “new infections per day” by testing everybody every single day, which is obviously impossible.

If your test can’t tell the difference between viral RNA fragments and living virions (which PCR does not, and cannot), then you can’t tell the difference between someone who is actively infected and someone who was previously exposed to the virus and either never got sick, or got sick and recovered.

If your test doesn’t assess viral load (which PCR does not, and cannot) then you have no way to distinguish between a person who has enough virions to cause disease and someone who does not.

If your test can react to the RNA of other viruses (which, counter to MoA’s assertions, some studies suggest it does), then you have no idea who is “positive for Sars-Cov-2” and who just had a cold a couple of weeks ago.

All in all the “cases” number is unreliable and borderline meaningless. To use it as a measure of the pandemic would be to create a forever war on an enemy which may already be defeated.

Summary: The PCR tests have been shown to be highly unreliable in more than one way, and are a potentially disastrous way of “tracking a pandemic”. Jeanmonod’s preference for dealing with confirmed deaths instead of misleading test results is backed by science and experts in epidemiology.

6. ON LOCKDOWNS, DEATH AND HYPOCRISY

In the original article for OffG, Dr Jeanmonod wrote:

General isolation, distancing and lockdown measures, by limiting social contacts, freedom and basic human rights, add to the death toll through an upsurge of psychosocial and economic destabilization, worsening of psychiatric and demented individuals and reduction of medical care to the whole population. We have thus a combined causality for an excess mortality of COVID-19, a significant part of it being not due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself but to the worldwide COVID-19 panic wave and the imposed introduction of drastic and inhumane measures.

Bernhard responds with his trademark tact and charm:

That is the “Lockdowns kill” thesis that many covidiots use to claim that negative side effects of pandemic control measures outweigh their positive effects.

The thesis is wrong. Spain had a total lockdown everywhere between March 14 and May 9. It also had a lot of excess death. A large countrywide seroprevalence study showed where the most people were infected. That data is available on a granular and localized level.

Here we see again the very careful process by which Bernhard selects his data, choosing to evidence his claim that “lockdowns don’t kill people” with a rather tortured statistical reasoning based on numbers from six months ago, and limited to a single country (Spain).

This is where the “debunking” lurches from impolite strident arrogance into complete denial, intellectual dishonesty and – worst of all – abject hypocrisy.

Lockdowns do cause death and destruction, this has never been debated, even by the people instituting them. The question was whether or not the risks of Covid19 merited the undoubted toll of collapsing the economy and shuttering hospitals. No one, on either side of this argument, has ever suggested they do no harm at all. Until now.

Refuting this kind of madness is like having to refute someone claiming they’re a coffee table or that they have six legs. Yes, it’s easy, and yes it probably does need to be done…but it’s slightly demeaning, and since you know they’re only going to ignore you and carry on being crazy, is there really any point?

Nevertheless, here we go: Yes, the lockdowns have killed people, and will likely continue to do so. They kill people in myriad ways which can be broadly defined in three categories:

Denial of medical treatment. The shuttering of hospitals has lead to countless tests, screenings, treatments and surgeries being cancelled. This is not up for debate. The exact number of deaths caused by this is unknown, but experts estimate 24,000 missed cancer diagnoses in England alone. Writing in the Daily Mail, a prominent oncologist revealed that over 110,000 patients are waiting to begin their cancer treatments. A study at Birmingham University found that, globally, over 28 MILLION surgeries had been cancelled.

In a similar vein, the media’s pushing of the message that the virus is incredibly dangerous, combined with worrying people about over-crowding hospitals, has lead to a huge drop in people calling for emergency medical care. Hospital admissions for heart attacks, strokes etc. are all way down from yearly averages. According to the British Heart Foundation, this has already lead to thousands of excess deaths from heart disease in the UK.

Economic misery and poverty. The destruction of the economy, including rendering millions of people unemployed and possibly many thousands literally homeless, will obviously result in death and suffering. Malnutrition, suicide, violent crime, drug use and alcoholism all surge as poverty increases.

Plus the increased anxiety of financial destitution causes stress-related disease – ulcers, heart attacks, strokes – which we already established are not being treated thanks to medical shutdowns. In the United States, with their private healthcare system, unemployment and poverty can mean not being able to afford medications you need to live.

Fear, Anxiety and Stress. The increased stress isn’t just related to financial problems, but the pandemic itself. Fear and anxiety – as well as causing heart attacks etc. – also deplete the immune system, leading to increased risk of other diseases. Further, denial of human contact is known to accelerate the progress of degenerative disease such as dementia. Mental health treatments have been halted, and people already suffering are at massively increased risk of suicide.

Even Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, said recently:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…]just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry…look what’s happening to small-holding farmers[…]it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

To argue that lockdowns don’t cause harm, don’t cause death, is patently absurd. But, as I said, it’s also hypocritical.

Throughout this whole ordeal we “Covidiots” – or “pandemic deniers” or whatever you want to call us – have been told we are putting “money before people”, that we don’t care about the lives and suffering of human beings. That we’re saying some lives matter less than others. We’ve been called “selfish”, “inhumane”, even “genocidal”.

And now those authoritarians who are so pro-lockdown are turning around and not just backing policies which are proven to result in deaths – they are then refusing to acknowledge the deaths they cause. To wipe thousands of human lives out of existence, and claim they never existed. It’s sickening and, frankly, disturbing.

Summary: Lockdowns cause excess deaths. This has been shown across multiple nations and for multiples causes. Denying that, at this stage, is almost insane. And one senses, more than anything, that Bernhard is attempting to soothe his own conscience more than deal with reality.

*

On the whole, if there were a theme to this “debunking” it would be “selectivity”.

He carefully selects to refute this article, and not the literal dozens of others we have done over the few months.

He carefully selects to refute the only part of this particular article without linked sources.

He carefully selects to refute the death rate with old data from one city, instead of new data from all around the globe.

He carefully selects to refute the idea lockdowns increased mortality with hastily constructed correlation, instead of officially cited causation.

And all the way through he carefully selects to ignore the academic sources Dr Jeanmonod references, and choose instead to present him as an ill-informed man making sweeping statements based on no evidence, rather than the truth: A highly educated expert making reasoned conclusions based on dozens of academic sources.

It’s not a “debunking” in the true sense. It’s 2000 word strawman, deliberately twisting the irrefutable original into something with which he can argue. It’s intellectually flawed, but it’s also sad. MoA is a site I have always respected, but this is small.

His attacks on the author’s honesty, and the integrity of our site, are likewise unfair and, worst of all, all based on his deliberate misrepresentation of our position. There is no attempt at even-handedness or discussion. Only venal rage and abuse.

If he wanted to disagree with our article – or any of our hundreds of articles – he could simply have done so with a logical argument which acknowledged and attempted to understand our position. That would be reasonable and display integrity. He could have asked for a right of reply (we have never denied one to anybody, ever), or offered us one on his site.

If he would simply acknowledge that we cite sources from academic journals, that our interpretations differ but we have a reasoned argument based on science, and that our worries stem from a place of genuine concern for our fellow human beings, then perhaps some kind of understanding could be reached.

Instead he has set about burning a bridge, and claiming we started the fire. There’s a fevered madness about it. An hysterical refusal to admit any evidence he doesn’t like even exists at all. I don’t understand it, and I can’t excuse it.

If your only recourse to win an argument is to simply ignore all the evidence you may be mistaken, whilst spouting abuse and accusing the other side of dishonesty…isn’t that already an admission of something?

He closes his piece with this quote:

There are quite a number of authors with titles who have preconceived opinions and defend them even when that requires mangling the facts or to simply lie about the science.

The irony is apparently totally lost on him.

[TonyGosling]

UK Legislation changed allowing forced detention and treatment, murder, rape, spying WHY WHY NOW?

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U83LbstquSM

https://pinecast.com/listen/559d0ec1-ffc0-4513-ac07-803156b3128c.mp3

https://pinecast.com/listen/559d0ec1-ffc0-4513-ac07-803156b3128c.mp3

[TonyGosling]

Dr Mike Yeadon

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMJoJ6i39k

73,422 views • 22 Oct 2020
The James Delingpole Channel

[TonyGosling]

“Another Way” Documentary Film Trailer

Link

“Another Way” Documentary Film Trailer www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ppcOM0rR4