Covid 9-11: Trust The Science!

In this strange inverted world where celebrities serve as role models, where bureaucrats and pharma shills pose as authority figures, and where official statistics are routinely labeled dangerous and misleading by a zealous army of internet 'fact checkers' eager to stamp out ‘fake news’, there are two mantras which we hear on a daily basis: 1. Trust the science. 2. Listen to the experts.

When it comes to the alleged coronavirus pandemic, putting aside the obvious logical fallacies inherent in these two diktats; appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, it surely wouldn’t hurt us to at least consider the growing body of opinion put forward by a growing body of well credentialed scientists and experts (as opposed the daily encyclicals spewed forth by politicians and their media and big pharma acolytes). I’m speaking here of people at the tops of their professional fields, in virology, epidemiology and general practice. People who have earned the respect of their peers through hundreds of published papers and thousands of citations in medical journals, recipients of Nobel prizes and other prestigious recognitions, yet who for some reason or other have found themselves among the ‘disappeared’ in our brave new world of controlled information; many of them having their social media accounts shut down, their reputations sullied and careers irreparably damaged. The list is long and reflects a broad range of opinion, but all seem to agree on a few of basic points: That Covid 19 was never a particularly dangerous pandemic. That government responses such as mandated mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns do more harm than good, and that the current mass vaccination program is unnecessary and moreover dangerous.

Rather than editorialise further, let’s hear from the experts themselves. This summary from Eshani M King, writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), makes for a good entry point.

“Suppression of science and lack of open debate has impinged enormously on three issues of fundamental significance. Firstly, public fear of Covid has been elevated to levels that are completely out of proportion to the actual danger. A recent peer-reviewed paper by one of the world’s most cited and respected scientist, Professor John Ioannidis of Stanford University, quotes an infection fatality rate for Covid of 0.00-0.57% (0.05% for under 70s), far lower than originally feared and no different to severe flu. This paper is published on WHO’s own Bulletin but ignored by UK mainstream media.

Secondly, although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “cases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mislabeled as Covid. Even Dr Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid but in the UK CTs may go up to 45, as confirmed by Professor Carl Heneghan of Oxford University’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that for CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive.

According to Professor Brookes, a Health Data Scientist from the University of Leicester, the UK’s official data shows no excess deaths due to respiratory infections this season. Instead, excess total deaths have been driven by lack of treatment due to hospital closure/lockdowns and have occurred mostly at home. Whilst there is no question that the first wave of Covid, a then novel virus, was lethal to many, there is no sound evidence of any second wave.

The third and possibly the most consequential suppression of science relates to the narrative that people do not develop immunity following a Covid infection. We know that immunity to SARS-CoV-1 is very durable, persisting for at least 12-17 years. Immunologists know that immunity to SARS-Cov-2 is no different. This is confirmed by many eminent scientists including Beda M Stadler, the former Director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern and Professor Emeritus, and Sucharit Bhakdi, former Chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz.

The human population has encountered and co-existed with myriad coronaviruses throughout evolution. Most of us therefore have cross-reacting T-cells, B cells and antibodies derived from encounters with cold coronaviruses that can recognise SARS-CoV-2, in the same way that people “immunised” with cowpox became less susceptible to serious illness from smallpox - as Edward Jenner discovered in 1796. This is why we do not generally die from cold coronaviruses and precisely why so many of us were not susceptible to falling severely ill from Covid earlier this year. Even the chance of passing Covid to your spouse at the height of the pandemic was as low as 17%! ...

... Hijacking of science by vested interests has resulted in immeasurable harms to society. Lockdowns, meant to save lives but being pushed by narratives that have little basis in science, have themselves caused loss of life, livelihoods, dignity, and humanity. We need to ask how we have got to this sorry state.”

John Ioannidis, mentioned above, is professor of Epidemiology at Stanford University and is recognised as one of the world’s most cited physician scientists. Speaking to Jordi Gol-Freixa of the Carlos III Health Institute in Madrid last December, Ioannidis raised concerns over modeling in the early stages of the pandemic.

“In fact, we have seen even within the first several months of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the modeling that has been done has not really been able to get realistic predictions and inferences.

Some of the modeling has led even to very misleading inferences because people trust too much these predictions, and they act based on them as if they were very strong evidence where actually they’re very weak evidence.

Clearly realizing that we don’t have good evidence is the first step. And it takes some brave people and some brave statements to really push that point that we don’t have evidence. You need to convince others who say, “I don’t care. I just need to do something because we have a serious situation here and forget about evidence. I’m just going to act.”

And I think that we have a very high risk of doing a lot of harm, unless we just say we don’t have evidence, let’s get evidence that is trustworthy as quickly as possible...

...Unfortunately, a lot of evidence is not shared for various reasons, there’s a huge literature on publication bias and selective reporting, on why that happens on the incentives for sharing data, that sometimes are focusing more on sharing extravagant, extreme, significant results and lots of more modest, moderate results non-significant results do not get to be disseminated.

Sometimes there’s conflicts of interest. In the case of a pandemic, you have like a complete mess of very fast moving science peer review being subverted probably by zealots sometimes who want to accept papers that fit their worldview immediately, and not accept or destroy papers that are proving that their thoughts and ideas and ideologies are wrong.

Christopher John MacRae Whitty CB FRCP FFPH FMedSci is a British physician and epidemiologist who serves as the Chief Medical Officer for England (CMO), Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government, Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) to the Department of Health and Social Care, Head of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Gresham Professor of Physics.

Whitty on the pathogenicity of Covid-19:

“Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time. Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens. Of those who get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease. Might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital. And then a minority of those will end up having to go to severe end critical care and some of those sadly will die. But that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall. And even in the highest risk group this is significantly less than 20%, ie. the great majority of people, even the very highest groups, if they catch this virus, will not die.”

Knut M. Wittkowski, CEO/Founder @ Asdera, Head, Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design @ Center for Clinical & Translational Science @ The Rockefeller University:

“Nothing is fundamentally different from the flus that we have seen before, every couple of years there’s a flu that’s a bit worse than the other flus were, and it goes away in exactly the way the other flus went away, and this one behaves exactly the same way.

“The epidemic has ended in China, it was ended in South Korea, in Iran it’s declining it will be ending anytime soon. It could be a bit longer than typically because of the containment which flattened and prolonged the epidemic. And in the United States we’re doing the same thing, we’re prolonging the epidemic to flatten the curve but eventually it will end.”

Michael Yeadon, former Chief Scientist and Vice President at Pfizer, holds a degree in biochemistry and toxicology and a research-based Ph.D. in respiratory pharmacology. He’s spent 32 years of his career working for large pharmaceutical companies, and 10 years in the biotechnology sector.

Yeadon on masks, social distancing and asymptomatic spread:

“To be a good, efficient source of infection, you have to have a lot of virus. And if you have a lot of viruses attacking you, you are fighting back. That process produces symptoms, inevitably, not just occasionally. It must always happen …

… And those people are not people who are walking around in the community, because if you’re full of virus and symptomatic, you are also ill, and ill people tend to stay at home or in bed.”

On the need for mass vaccinations:

“There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines.”

“You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects,”

On Lockdowns:

“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” “Every part of it … None of the key themes that you hear talked about — from asymptomatic transmission to top-up vaccines [i.e., booster shots] — not one of those things is supported by the science.

Every piece is cleverly chosen adjacently to something that probably is true, but is itself a lie, and has led people to where we are right now. I don’t normally use phrases like this, but I think we are standing at the very gates of hell … It’s all about control.”

Beda M. Stadler, also quoted above, is a biologist and Emeritus professor of Immunology and former Director of the University Institute of Immunology at the Insel Hospital in Bern. Stadler writes in the Swiss magazine Weltwoche:

"Firstly, it was wrong to claim that this virus was novel. Secondly, It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus. Thirdly, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever."

The late Kary Banks Mullis was a Nobel Prize-winning American biochemist, author, and lecturer. In recognition of his improvement of the polymerase chain reaction technique (PCR), he shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and earned the Japan Prize in the same year. Prior to his untimely death in August 2019, Mullis had expressed serious concerns over the misuse of the PCR test - a version of which is now being used for detecting SARS CoV-2, as a diagnostic tool.

“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody…. I mean, because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure – which PCR can do – then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body.”

“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough... it doesn't tell you that you're sick .”

Dr. Roger Hodkinson is a general pathologist and Fellow of Canada’s Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons who received his medical degree from Cambridge. He describes the Covid 19 pandemic as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.” Echoing Mullis’ concerns, Hodkinson repeats that “Positive test results do not mean a clinical infection”, and says that “All testing should stop” because the false numbers produced are “driving public hysteria.” Hodkinson says the risk of death for people under the age of 65 is “one in three-hundred thousand” and argues it is “outrageous” to shut down society for what is merely “just another bad flu.” “There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians.” “We are seeing politics playing medicine, and that’s a very dangerous game.”

Speaking of the mRNA vaccines proferred by Pfizer, Moderna and J&J, Hodkinson says:

“I’m a serious evidence-based career pathologist who has done everything in pathology at national and provincial levels and I take evidence-based science very, very seriously. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I’m not an anti-vaxxer, I’m none of the above. But when I see certain things in the literature that could – underlined – have serious potential long-term sequelae, I think it’s my duty to stand up and blow the whistle and say ‘hey, stop the train, have you seen this? It needs to be looked at. I hope it’s wrong but show me the data’.

“The data I’m talking about is well-described in the literature, that of the significant expression of the ACE 2 receptor in both the placenta and the testes. And more importantly, in the testes it’s the cells that actually produce the spermatozoa, the precursors, called spermatogonia. Clearly there is an excess of spike protein circulating as a result of an unexpected surge in some people who get the vaccine.

“And that circulation takes the spike protein everywhere, including the placenta of women who happen to be pregnant at the time, which is a one-time hit for that particular pregnancy, probably not for subsequent ones. But there is also potential for a hit on the testes, which of course is not a one-time hit, it could be a permanent hit.

On vaccinating children:

“Children are not dying of this condition first of all, they are not even suffering from this condition. The vast majority just brush it off without even knowing they’ve got it. So it’s not a problem for children. And if it’s therefore not any more of a problem than a trivial cold for children, then why in God’s name are we subjecting them to an untested vaccine? It is not an emergency, it is not needed and it has potential complications on fertility and therefore it’s utterly reckless.” “Vaccinating children is absolutely obscene – obscene. They are not at threat and you are putting them at risk.”

“This virus is everywhere. It’s in an aerosol in every aisle in every foodstore whether you are walking past someone or not. It’s the roulette game of life, you may get it, you may not. And if you get it and you’re under 65 and you’re otherwise well, it’s going to be nothing more than the regular flu, except for a small number of people who sadly are going to get a severe infection and some of them will die. It is really tragic and I’m not being callous saying this but it happens every single year with the flu. In fact children die of the flu every year.

On the current hysteria:

“I do not think this is some big internationally coordinated conspiracy… not at all. Are they taking huge advantage of it? Unquestionably. And despicably so. But as to why it is being maintained, I think you have to look at a number of factors. The first way it is being maintained is because of asymptomatic testing showing a huge number of false positives, certainly when you start getting up to cycle thresholds above 35, the vast majority, 90 per cent, are false positives.

“That drives a graph in the morning paper that supports the hysteria in the population because they haven’t got any information to counter what’s going on. And the politicians use those graphs to double down on the idiocy that’s already underway.” …

… “So they did all this stupid stuff for which there is no evidence in the medical literature whatsoever for effectiveness and when it was shown not to be working they simply doubled down on it, again and again.

Geert van den Bosch’s credentials include Chief Innovation and Development officer @ Univac, Program Manager @ GAVI, Head of Vaccine Development @ German Center for Vaccine Research, Global Program Director @ Solvay Biologicals, Research Director, Head of Adjuvants @ Novartis, Head of New Biotech Vaccine Development @ GSK Biologicals.

Bosch has recently published an open letter addressed to “all authorities, scientists and experts around the world”. It begins as follows:

“I am all but an antivaxxer. As a scientist I do not usually appeal to any platform of this kind to make a stand on vaccine-related topics. As a dedicated virologist and vaccine expert I only make an exception when health authorities allow vaccines to be administered in ways that threaten public health, most certainly when scientific evidence is being ignored. The present extremely critical situation forces me to spread this emergency call. As the unprecedented extent of human intervention in the Covid-19- pandemic is now at risk of resulting in a global catastrophe without equal, this call cannot sound loudly and strongly enough.

As stated, I am not against vaccination. On the contrary, I can assure you that each of the current vaccines have been designed, developed and manufactured by brilliant and competent scientists. However, this type of prophylactic vaccines are completely inappropriate, and even highly dangerous, when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic. Vaccinologists, scientists and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term defects in individual patents, but don’t seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. Unless I am scientifically proven wrong, it is difficult to understand how current human interventions will prevent circulating variants from turning into a wild monster."

Professor Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate famed for his work in the isolation of the HIV retrovirus, is another highly qualified expert who has lately become persona non grata after raising the alarm over antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) in vaccine recipients. Montagnier’s interviews are given in French, but he makes compelling arguments that variants are a consequence of natural selection due to vaccinations, that ADE can be expected to lead to much stronger infection by variants in vaccinated people, and that mass vaccinations are a “medical mistake”.

Professor Dolores Cahill, Molecular Biologist and Immunologist at the University of Dublin raises the stakes in her damning assessment of vaccine mandates, pointing out in a recent interview with Danish Dkdox.tv that the chance of having an adverse reaction to a vaccine is 1 in 50 (2%), compared to a 1 in 1.8 million chance of dying from Covid 19. Cahill predicts a rise in auto immune conditions as a result of the vaccines which will likely lead to further deaths months or years down the track.

Other notable voices of dissent include those of Professor Karol Sikora, former Chief of the Cancer Program of the World Health Organisation; Professor Sunetra Gupta, Chair of Theoretical Epidemiology at University of Oxford; Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and former Editor-in-Chief for Evidence-Based Medicine @ BMJ, and German infectious disease specialist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, to name just a few from an ever growing list.

The one thing that all of the above share in common, apart from being eminently qualified to speak to the matter at hand, is that they have all been ‘debunked’ and discredited’ by the aforementioned fact checkers who play the role of the Ministry if Truth in our current Orwellian dystopia. One wonders how many Ph.Ds and Nobel laureates can they ‘debunk’ before someone cries foul? Trust the science. Listen to the experts, they repeat over and over again. But not this science, and not these experts.

Malcolm Kendrick, author and GP in the UK’s National Institute of Health brings the point home in an op-ed penned for RT, which is probably an appropriate note for us to end on:

“I have studied the history of medicine, and medical interventions, for many years. The most extreme disasters have always followed a fairly distinct pattern. A series of steps, if you like.

Step one: We have a serious disease that is killing lots of people.

Step two: It creates great fear, and the medical profession has nothing much in place to deal with it.

Step three: A charismatic leader emerges to decree that he (almost always a ‘he’ up to now) knows how to treat it/control it.

Step four: The ‘idea’ is enthusiastically taken up around the world and becomes mainstream thinking.

Step five: The ‘idea’ becomes standard practice.

Step six: The ‘idea’ is taught to medics and becomes accepted truth, a fact.

Step seven: Anyone who goes against the ‘idea’ is ruthlessly attacked.”

A familiar pattern indeed. But while Kendrick, like Hodkinson, tend to err on the side of incompetence rather than malfeasance, others might be less forgiving in their assessment.