William A. Haseltine

“These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal”

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns. These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal.

What would a normal vaccine trial look like?

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected.

We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.

The greatest fear people have is dying from this disease. A vaccine must significantly or entirely reduce deaths from Covid-19. Over two hundred thousand people have died in the United States and nearly a million worldwide. None list mortality as a critical endpoint.

We recognize that the influenza vaccine does not prevent infection with that virus, but does have a measurable impact on hospitalization and death. The moderate protections from the influenza virus can potentially be replicated and improved on with Covid-19, but only with extensive trials that ensure the efficacy of a future vaccine.

Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants.

These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.

Interim analysis success requires a seventy percent efficacy. For Moderna, the interim analysis includes giving the vaccine to only 53 people. Their success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.

The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.

These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19. Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine’s ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.

If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.

These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and death. It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.

It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success. As this is being written, the FDA is poised to announce tougher standards for a Covid-19 vaccine in the near future. It is my hope that these new standards for an EUA will at a minimum include requirements for protections from infection itself, protections from severe virus-related disease leading to hospitalization, and a significant improvement in Covid-19 related mortality.

It is clear from these studies that the vaccines currently under trial will not be the silver bullet needed to end the pandemic. We must do all we can public health measures to control Covid-19 as China and other Asian countries have successfully done.

Source: Forbes

Jim Meehan MD
meehanmd.com

A response to people who use the classic fallacious argument, “Well, if masks don’t work, then why do surgeons wear them?”

I’m a surgeon that has performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. However, that fact alone doesn’t really qualify me as an expert on the matter. More importantly, I am a former editor of a medical journal. I know how to read the medical literature, distinguish good science from bad, and fact from fiction. Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I’ve read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence.

First, let’s be clear. The premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that “masks must work to prevent viral transmission” is a logical fallacy that I would classify as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing “apples to oranges.”

Although surgeons do wear masks to prevent their respiratory droplets from contaminating the surgical field and the exposed internal tissues of our surgical patients, that is about as far as the analogy extends. Obviously, surgeons cannot “socially distance” from their surgical patients (unless we use robotic surgical devices, in which case, I would definitely not wear a mask).

The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks do nothing to prevent viral transmission. We should all realize by now that face masks have never been shown to prevent or protect against viral transmission. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.

The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won’t prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health “authorities” flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19:

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

Another area of “false equivalence” has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers.

Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide re-breathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance.

Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER re-use surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.

The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increase contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease.

Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community.

If you can’t help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health “authorities” lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes.

Jim Meehan MD is a physician, accomplished leader, and entrepreneur who provides innovative science and solutions that adhere to open, honest, transparent, and uncompromisingly patient-centered principles. He transforms raw data and scientific research into easy to understand information that educates, informs, and motivates changes in behavior to lead to improved health and wellness. Dr. Meehan believes in educating patients to be scientists of their own health.

AIER reports that the following letter has made an impact on public health authorities not only in Belgium but around the world. The text could pertain to any case in which states locked down their citizens rather than allow people freedom and permit medical professionals to bear the primary job of disease mitigation.

So far it has been signed by 435 medical doctors, 1,439 medically trained health professionals, and 9,901 citizens.

* * *

We, Belgian doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore.
The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good.
We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties.

‘A cure must not be worse than the problem’ is a thesis that is more relevant than ever in the current situation. We note, however, that the collateral damage now being caused to the population will have a greater impact in the short and long term on all sections of the population than the number of people now being safeguarded from corona.
In our opinion, the current corona measures and the strict penalties for non-compliance with them are contrary to the values formulated by the Belgian Supreme Health Council, which, until recently, as the health authority, has always ensured quality medicine in our country: “Science – Expertise – Quality – Impartiality – Independence – Transparency”. ¹

We believe that the policy has introduced mandatory measures that are not sufficiently scientifically based, unilaterally directed, and that there is not enough space in the media for an open debate in which different views and opinions are heard. In addition, each municipality and province now has the authorisation to add its own measures, whether well-founded or not.

Moreover, the strict repressive policy on corona strongly contrasts with the government’s minimal policy when it comes to disease prevention, strengthening our own immune system through a healthy lifestyle, optimal care with attention for the individual and investment in care personnel.²

The concept of health

In 1948, the WHO defined health as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or other physical impairment’.³

Health, therefore, is a broad concept that goes beyond the physical and also relates to the emotional and social well-being of the individual. Belgium also has a duty, from the point of view of subscribing to fundamental human rights, to include these human rights in its decision-making when it comes to measures taken in the context of public health. ⁴
The current global measures taken to combat SARS-CoV-2 violate to a large extent this view of health and human rights. Measures include compulsory wearing of a mask (also in open air and during sporting activities, and in some municipalities even when there are no other people in the vicinity), physical distancing, social isolation, compulsory quarantine for some groups and hygiene measures.

The predicted pandemic with millions of deaths

At the beginning of the pandemic, the measures were understandable and widely supported, even if there were differences in implementation in the countries around us. The WHO originally predicted a pandemic that would claim 3.4% victims, in other words millions of deaths, and a highly contagious virus for which no treatment or vaccine was available.  This would put unprecedented pressure on the intensive care units (ICUs) of our hospitals.

This led to a global alarm situation, never seen in the history of mankind: “flatten the curve” was represented by a lockdown that shut down the entire society and economy and quarantined healthy people. Social distancing became the new normal in anticipation of a rescue vaccine.

The facts about covid-19

Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective facts showed a completely different reality. ^{5 6}

The course of covid-19 followed the course of a normal wave of infection similar to a flu season. As every year, we see a mix of flu viruses following the curve: first the rhinoviruses, then the influenza A and B viruses, followed by the coronaviruses. There is nothing different from what we normally see.

The use of the non-specific PCR test, which produces many false positives, showed an exponential picture.  This test was rushed through with an emergency procedure and was never seriously self-tested. The creator expressly warned that this test was intended for research and not for diagnostics.⁷
The PCR test works with cycles of amplification of genetic material – a piece of genome is amplified each time. Any contamination (e.g. other viruses, debris from old virus genomes) can possibly result in false positives.⁸

The test does not measure how many viruses are present in the sample. A real viral infection means a massive presence of viruses, the so-called virus load. If someone tests positive, this does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become ill. Koch’s postulate was not fulfilled (“The pure agent found in a patient with complaints can provoke the same complaints in a healthy person”).

Since a positive PCR test does not automatically indicate active infection or infectivity, this does not justify the social measures taken, which are based solely on these tests. ^{9 10}

Lockdown.

If we compare the waves of infection in countries with strict lockdown policies to countries that did not impose lockdowns (Sweden, Iceland …), we see similar curves.  So there is no link between the imposed lockdown and the course of the infection. Lockdown has not led to a lower mortality rate.

If we look at the date of application of the imposed lockdowns we see that the lockdowns were set after the peak was already over and the number of cases decreasing. The drop was therefore not the result of the taken measures. ¹¹
As every year, it seems that climatic conditions (weather, temperature and humidity) and growing immunity are more likely to reduce the wave of infection.

Our immune system

For thousands of years, the human body has been exposed daily to moisture and droplets containing infectious microorganisms (viruses, bacteria and fungi).

The penetration of these microorganisms is prevented by an advanced defence mechanism – the immune system. A strong immune system relies on normal daily exposure to these microbial influences. Overly hygienic measures have a detrimental effect on our immunity. ^{12 13} Only people with a weak or faulty immune system should be protected by extensive hygiene or social distancing.

Influenza will re-emerge in the autumn (in combination with covid-19) and a possible decrease in natural resilience may lead to further casualties.

Our immune system consists of two parts: a congenital, non-specific immune system and an adaptive immune system.

The non-specific immune system forms a first barrier: skin, saliva, gastric juice, intestinal mucus, vibratory hair cells, commensal flora, … and prevents the attachment of micro-organisms to tissue.

If they do attach, macrophages can cause the microorganisms to be encapsulated and destroyed.

The adaptive immune system consists of mucosal immunity (IgA antibodies, mainly produced by cells in the intestines and lung epithelium), cellular immunity (T-cell activation), which can be generated in contact with foreign substances or microorganisms, and humoral immunity (IgM and IgG antibodies produced by the B cells).

Recent research shows that both systems are highly entangled.

It appears that most people already have a congenital or general immunity to e.g. influenza and other viruses. This is confirmed by the findings on the cruise ship Diamond Princess, which was quarantined because of a few passengers who died of Covid-19. Most of the passengers were elderly and were in an ideal situation of transmission on the ship. However, 75% did not appear to be infected. So even in this high-risk group, the majority are resistant to the virus.

A study in the journal Cell shows that most people neutralise the coronavirus by mucosal (IgA) and cellular immunity (T-cells), while experiencing few or no symptoms ¹⁴.

Researchers found up to 60% SARS-Cov-2 reactivity with CD4+T cells in a non-infected population, suggesting cross-reactivity with other cold (corona) viruses.¹⁵

Most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity because they were already in contact with variants of the same virus.

The antibody formation (IgM and IgG) by B-cells only occupies a relatively small part of our immune system. This may explain why, with an antibody percentage of 5-10%, there may be a group immunity anyway. The efficacy of vaccines is assessed precisely on the basis of whether or not we have these antibodies. This is a misrepresentation.

Most people who test positive (PCR) have no complaints. Their immune system is strong enough. Strengthening natural immunity is a much more logical approach. Prevention is an important, insufficiently highlighted pillar: healthy, full-fledged nutrition, exercise in fresh air, without a mask, stress reduction and nourishing emotional and social contacts.

Consequences of social isolation on physical and mental health

Social isolation and economic damage led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse.¹⁶

Studies have shown that the more social and emotional commitments people have, the more resistant they are to viruses. It is much more likely that isolation and quarantine have fatal consequences. ¹⁷

The isolation measures have also led to physical inactivity in many older people due to their being forced to stay indoors. However, sufficient exercise has a positive effect on cognitive functioning, reducing depressive complaints and anxiety and improving physical health, energy levels, well-being and, in general, quality of life.¹⁸

Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health. ¹⁹

A highly contagious virus with millions of deaths without any treatment?

Mortality turned out to be many times lower than expected and close to that of a normal seasonal flu (0.2%). ²⁰
The number of registered corona deaths therefore still seems to be overestimated.
There is a difference between death by corona and death with corona. Humans are often carriers of multiple viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria at the same time. Taking into account the fact that most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the statistics.

The most vulnerable groups can be clearly identified. The vast majority of deceased patients were 80 years of age or older. The majority (70%) of the deceased, younger than 70 years, had an underlying disorder, such as cardiovascular suffering, diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease or obesity. The vast majority of infected persons (>98%) did not or hardly became ill or recovered spontaneously.

Meanwhile, there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and AZT (azithromycin). Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

This effective therapy has been confirmed by the clinical experience of colleagues in the field with impressive results. This contrasts sharply with the theoretical criticism (insufficient substantiation by double-blind studies) which in some countries (e.g. the Netherlands) has even led to a ban on this therapy. A meta-analysis in The Lancet, which could not demonstrate an effect of HCQ, was withdrawn. The primary data sources used proved to be unreliable and 2 out of 3 authors were in conflict of interest. However, most of the guidelines based on this study remained unchanged … ^{48 49}
We have serious questions about this state of affairs.
In the US, a group of doctors in the field, who see patients on a daily basis, united in “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference which has been watched millions of times.^{21 51}
French Prof Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille (IHU) also presented this promising combination therapy as early as April. Dutch GP Rob Elens, who cured many patients in his practice with HCQ and zinc, called on colleagues in a petition for freedom of therapy.²²
The definitive evidence comes from the epidemiological follow-up in Switzerland: mortality rates compared with and without this therapy.²³

From the distressing media images of ARDS (acute respiratory distress syndrome) where people were suffocating and given artificial respiration in agony, we now know that this was caused by an exaggerated immune response with intravascular coagulation in the pulmonary blood vessels. The administration of blood thinners and dexamethasone and the avoidance of artificial ventilation, which was found to cause additional damage to lung tissue, means that this dreaded complication, too, is virtually not fatal anymore. ⁴⁷

It is therefore not a killer virus, but a well-treatable condition.

Propagation

Spreading occurs by drip infection (only for patients who cough or sneeze) and aerosols in closed, unventilated rooms. Contamination is therefore not possible in the open air. Contact tracing and epidemiological studies show that healthy people (or positively tested asymptomatic carriers) are virtually unable to transmit the virus. Healthy people therefore do not put each other at risk. ^{24 25}
Transfer via objects (e.g. money, shopping or shopping trolleys) has not been scientifically proven.^{26 27 28}

All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no scientific basis for this.

Masks

Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. ^{29 30 31}

Wearing a mask is not without side effects. ^{32 33} Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask.³⁴

Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances. After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme poorly ventilated room. ³⁵

Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised safety specialists for workers.
Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards. ³⁶

A second corona wave?

A second wave is now being discussed in Belgium, with a further tightening of the measures as a result. However, closer examination of Sciensano’s figures³⁷shows that, although there has been an increase in the number of infections since mid-July, there was no increase in hospital admissions or deaths at that time. It is therefore not a second wave of corona, but a so-called “case chemistry” due to an increased number of tests. ⁵⁰
The number of hospital admissions or deaths showed a shortlasting minimal increase in recent weeks, but in interpreting it, we must take into account the recent heatwave. In addition, the vast majority of the victims are still in the population group >75 years.
This indicates that the proportion of the measures taken in relation to the working population and young people is disproportionate to the intended objectives.
The vast majority of the positively tested “infected” persons are in the age group of the active population, which does not develop any or merely limited symptoms, due to a well-functioning immune system.
So nothing has changed – the peak is over.

Strengthening a prevention policy

The corona measures form a striking contrast to the minimal policy pursued by the government until now, when it comes to well-founded measures with proven health benefits such as the sugar tax, the ban on (e-)cigarettes and making healthy food, exercise and social support networks financially attractive and widely accessible. It is a missed opportunity for a better prevention policy that could have brought about a change in mentality in all sections of the population with clear results in terms of public health. At present, only 3% of the health care budget goes to prevention. ²

The Hippocratic Oath

As a doctor, we took the Hippocratic Oath:
“I will above all care for my patients, promote their health and alleviate their suffering”.

“I will inform my patients correctly.”

“Even under pressure, I will not use my medical knowledge for practices that are against humanity.”
The current measures force us to act against this oath.
Other health professionals have a similar code.

The ‘primum non nocere’, which every doctor and health professional assumes, is also undermined by the current measures and by the prospect of the possible introduction of a generalised vaccine, which is not subject to extensive prior testing.

Vaccine

Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.³⁸
Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. ^{39 40} We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.
On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.⁴¹
If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.

The role of the media and the official communication plan

Over the past few months, newspaper, radio and TV makers seemed to stand almost uncritically behind the panel of experts and the government, there, where it is precisely the press that should be critical and prevent one-sided governmental communication. This has led to a public communication in our news media, that was more like propaganda than objective reporting.

In our opinion, it is the task of journalism to bring news as objectively and neutrally as possible, aimed at finding the truth and critically controlling power, with dissenting experts also being given a forum in which to express themselves.

This view is supported by the journalistic codes of ethics.⁴²

The official story that a lockdown was necessary, that this was the only possible solution, and that everyone stood behind this lockdown, made it difficult for people with a different view, as well as experts, to express a different opinion.

Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed.

We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision. This policy also has a paralysing effect and feeds fear and concern in society. In this context, we reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union! ⁴³

The way in which Covid-19 has been portrayed by politicians and the media has not done the situation any good either. War terms were popular and warlike language was not lacking. There has often been mention of a ‘war’ with an ‘invisible enemy’ who has to be ‘defeated’. The use in the media of phrases such as ‘care heroes in the front line’ and ‘corona victims’ has further fuelled fear, as has the idea that we are globally dealing with a ‘killer virus’.

The relentless bombardment with figures, that were unleashed on the population day after day, hour after hour, without interpreting those figures, without comparing them to flu deaths in other years, without comparing them to deaths from other causes, has induced a real psychosis of fear in the population. This is not information, this is manipulation.

We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse, including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an unprecedented media censorship.^{43 44}

We urgently call on the media to take their responsibilities here!

We demand an open debate in which all experts are heard.

Emergency law versus Human Rights

The general principle of good governance calls for the proportionality of government decisions to be weighed up in the light of the Higher Legal Standards: any interference by government must comply with the fundamental rights as protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Interference by public authorities is only permitted in crisis situations. In other words, discretionary decisions must be proportionate to an absolute necessity.

The measures currently taken concern interference in the exercise of, among other things, the right to respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, the right to education, etc., and must therefore comply with fundamental rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
For example, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the ECHR, interference with the right to private and family life is permissible only if the measures are necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the protection of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, the protection of health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the regulatory text on which the interference is based must be sufficiently clear, foreseeable and proportionate to the objectives pursued.⁴⁵

The predicted pandemic of millions of deaths seemed to respond to these crisis conditions, leading to the establishment of an emergency government. Now that the objective facts show something completely different, the condition of inability to act otherwise (no time to evaluate thoroughly if there is an emergency) is no longer in place. Covid-19 is not a cold virus, but a well treatable condition with a mortality rate comparable to the seasonal flu. In other words, there is no longer an insurmountable obstacle to public health.

There is no state of emergency.

Immense damage caused by the current policies

An open discussion on corona measures means that, in addition to the years of life gained by corona patients, we must also take into account other factors affecting the health of the entire population. These include damage in the psychosocial domain (increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse)¹⁶ and economic damage.

If we take this collateral damage into account, the current policy is out of all proportion, the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

We find it shocking that the government is invoking health as a reason for the emergency law.

As doctors and health professionals, in the face of a virus which, in terms of its harmfulness, mortality and transmissibility, approaches the seasonal influenza, we can only reject these extremely disproportionate measures.

• We therefore demand an immediate end to all measures.
• We are questioning the legitimacy of the current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors.
• Following on from ACU 2020 ⁴⁶https://acu2020.org/nederlandse-versie/ we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the “infodemic”, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law.⁴³

Distribution of this letter

We would like to make a public appeal to our professional associations and fellow carers to give their opinion on the current measures.

We draw attention to and call for an open discussion in which carers can and dare to speak out.

With this open letter, we send out the signal that progress on the same footing does more harm than good, and call on politicians to inform themselves independently and critically about the available evidence – including that from experts with different views, as long as it is based on sound science – when rolling out a policy, with the aim of promoting optimum health.

With concern, hope and in a personal capacity.

1. https://www.health.belgium.be/nl/wie-zijn-we#Missie
2. standaard.be/preventie
3. https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/constitution
4. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health
5. https://swprs.org/feiten-over-covid19/
6. https://the-iceberg.net/
7. https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm
8. President John Magufuli of Tanzania: “Even Papaya and Goats are Corona positive” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=207HuOxltvI
9. Open letter by biochemist Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez to the Dutch chamber https://www.gentechvrij.nl/2020/08/15/foute-interpretatie/
10. Interview with Drs Mario Ortiz Martinez https://troo.tube/videos/watch/6ed900eb-7459-4a1b-93fd-b393069f4fcd?fbclid=IwAR1XrullC2qopJjgFxEgbSTBvh-4ZCuJa1VxkHTXEtYMEyGG3DsNwUdaatY
11. https://infekt.ch/2020/04/sind-wir-tatsaechlich-im-blindflug/
12. Lambrecht, B., Hammad, H. The immunology of the allergy epidemic and the hygiene hypothesis. Nat Immunol 18, 1076–1083 (2017). https://www.nature.com/articles/ni.3829
13. Sharvan Sehrawat, Barry T. Rouse, Does the hygiene hypothesis apply to COVID-19 susceptibility?, Microbes and Infection, 2020, ISSN 1286-4579, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2020.07.002
14. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30610-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420306103%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
15. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-08-11/9-manieren-om-corona-te-voorkomen/
16. Feys, F., Brokken, S., & De Peuter, S. (2020, May 22). Risk-benefit and cost-utility analysis for COVID-19 lockdown in Belgium: the impact on mental health and wellbeing. https://psyarxiv.com/xczb3/
17. Kompanje, 2020
18. Conn, Hafdahl en Brown, 2009; Martinsen 2008; Yau, 2008
19. https://brandbriefggz.nl/
20. https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/#overall-mortality
21. https://www.xandernieuws.net/algemeen/groep-artsen-vs-komt-in-verzet-facebook-bant-hun-17-miljoen-keer-bekeken-video/
22. https://www.petities.com/einde_corona_crises_overheid_sta_behandeling_van_covid-19_met_hcq_en_zink_toe
23. https://zelfzorgcovid19.nl/statistieken-zwitserland-met-hcq-zonder-hcq-met-hcq-leveren-het-bewijs/
24. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
25. http://www.emro.who.int/health-topics/corona-virus/transmission-of-covid-19-by-asymptomatic-cases.html
26. WHO https://www.marketwatch.com/story/who-we-did-not-say-that-cash-was-transmitting-coronavirus-2020-03-06
27. https://www.nordkurier.de/ratgeber/es-gibt-keine-gefahr-jemandem-beim-einkaufen-zu-infizieren-0238940804.html
28. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-banknotes/banknotes-carry-no-particular-coronavirus-risk-german-disease-expert-idUSKBN20Y2ZT
29. 29. Contradictory statements by our virologists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K9xfmkMsvM
30. https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2020-07-05/stop-met-anderhalve-meter-afstand-en-het-verplicht-dragen-van-mondkapjes/
31. Security expert Tammy K. Herrema Clark https://youtu.be/TgDm_maAglM
32. https://theplantstrongclub.org/2020/07/04/healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks-by-jim-meehan-md/
33. https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/
34. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200315/Reusing-masks-may-increase-your-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-expert-says.aspx
35. https://werk.belgie.be/nl/nieuws/nieuwe-regels-voor-de-kwaliteit-van-de-binnenlucht-werklokalen
36. https://kavlaanderen.blogspot.com/2020/07/als-maskers-niet-werken-waarom-dragen.html
37. https://covid-19.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/Covid19/Meest%20recente%20update.pdf
38. Haralambieva, I.H. et al., 2015. The impact of immunosenescence on humoral immune response variation after influenza A/H1N1 vaccination in older subjects. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26044074/
39. Global vaccine safety summit WHO 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJXXDLGKmPg
40. No liability manufacturers vaccines https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20200804_95956456?fbclid=IwAR0IgiA-6sNVQvE8rMC6O5Gq5xhOulbcN1BhdI7Rw-7eq_pRtJDCxde6SQI
41. https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1572921830018/bill-gates-admits-700000-people-will-be-harmed-or-killed-by-his-covid-19-solution
42. Journalistic code https://www.rvdj.be/node/63
43. Disinformation related to COVID-19 approaches European Commission EurLex, juni 2020 (this file will not damage your computer)
44. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext
45. http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/dbx/adviezen/67142.pdf#search=67.142
46. https://acu2020.org/
47. https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0049384820303297?token=9718E5413AACDE0D14A3A0A56A89A3EF744B5A201097F4459AE565EA5EDB222803FF46D7C6CD3419652A215FDD2C874F
48. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
49. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
50. There is no revival of the pandemic, but a so-called casedemic due to more testing.
    https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/crucial-viewing-understanding-covid-19-casedemic1
51. https://docs4opendebate.be/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/white-paper-on-hcq-from-AFD.pdf

Pft says:

Prof. Udi Qimron, the Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University.

“‘If we had not been told that there was an epidemic in the country, you would not have known there was such an epidemic and you would not have done anything about it”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/285341

As for excess deaths, there certainly have been excess deaths. 40% of confirmed COVID deaths are in nursing homes. 99.8% of others are cured by their immune systems. The other deaths were due to lockdowns due to sick people being locked out from getting medical care due to cancelled appointments/surgeries and fear of going to ER during heart attacks/strokes. No doubt there were more suicides, although many were not recorded as such because medical examiners could not investigate. Some of these deaths tested positive for the virus, but did not die of the virus – or even have the virus (already recovered or false positive), but were counted as COVID deaths.

The were also economic hardships during and after lockdowns. There is dated data (from 1981) showing a 37,000 increase in deaths for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker.

According to the study, a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks], 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.

Multiply by 1.5 -2.0 to adjust for increase in population today. This doesn’t even include the excess deaths from lockdowns. All this is the reason for most of the excess deaths. Not all COVID.

There was a lot of planning that went into this, not just nationally but globally. In order to bring in a New Order, the Old Order must be destroyed. This one actually began in 1968 with the assassination of RFK, and Brzezinski’s book on the coming Technocratic Era. He later cofounded the TLC with Rockefeller, Bush, Kissinger, Volcker and Carter and they rolled out Project Democracy, which called for a disintegration of society and the economy over the next several decades – which has indeed occurred, with the pace accelerating in lockstep with technological advances.

Now the technology and tools have given them the means to transform us into their Utopian World Order (dystopian for us), where they will achieve Authoritarian Technocratic Control over every individual and pursue their Transhumanist agenda to become Homo Deux while leaving the rest of us behind as a subspecies like the Neanderthals. Those who will be spared to serve their God-Human masters will submit by wearing a mask and taking a knee and many shots. The rest will be replaced by AI and robotics, disposed of in some manner. According to Deagel.com there will be 99 million Americans in 2025

· A lot of planning went into this, especially over the last decade.
I see the 2009 Swine Flu was a trial run for COVID (and SARS before that). The 3 things they learned was 1) they needed to flatten the curve to delay herd immunity until a vaccine was developed. 2) They also needed to inflate the death count by changing how cause of death is defined, and 3) they needed to increase testing especially when death rates dropped at the end of the flu season and count asymptomatic positives as cases

· In 2010, Rockefeller Fund issues its Lock Step report and Gates declares this to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Billionaires Good Club meets and agrees to tackle the population problem.

· Global Warming /Climate Change is hyped over the next decade with the push for a Green Economy escalating at the start of 2019. Larry Fink /Black Rock was cofounder of the 2015 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). In 2016 the TCFD, along with the City of London Corporation and the UK Government, created the Green Finance Initiative, aiming to channel trillions of dollars to “green” investments.

· In the 6 months before COVID, several Central Banks and Larry Fink declared the urgency of Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Larry Fink tells companies in January that he will pull his 7 trillion in investments from companies who don’t focus on sustainable development. Now he is directing trillions in Fed money to companies he favors.

· Larry Fink proposed an Emergency Financial Bail Out to the Fed in August 2019, claiming the Fed was running out of tools. A mini–crisis in September (false flag) when banks decided to lend to each other followed as a warning, and COVID then gave Larry and his crew what he wanted. Larry incidentally was one of Trump’s Personal Wealth Managers when he did that sort of thing. Made him a lot of money, according to Trump.

· AI, Robotics, IoT, 5G are the key to the 4th IR and private-public philanthropic funding goes into overdrive as plans for Digital Currency, Digital ID., Social Credit Scores are advanced.

· In 2018, Trump created the NSAIC for AI development led by Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO, Bilderberger and Team 8 member. In 2019, his report stated we needed to transform society to become more like China so that we could compete with them without being hindered by concerns of violating privacy and rights. He also suggested social credit scores, like in China, could be used without being punitive. Trump issued an EO not long after, making AI a national priority. He also issued an EO making flu vaccinations a national security concern.

· Censorship against Climate Deniers and Anti-Vaxxers escalated during the decade, later expanding to other realms using Prop or Not, Poynter’s Gates-funded IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network), Obama’s Countering Foreign Propaganda Act and, in 2018, DHS compiling files on social media influencers using private contractors hired to monitor and collect info on them.

· The First Shelter-in-Place (Stay at Home) orders were issued during the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013 to gage compliance of the population for future use.

· 17 Sustainable Development Goals for Agenda 2030 agreed to in 2015

· Barr released his Precrime program in October and later requested the authority for precrime detentions during COVID outbreak

· GOF research on natural viruses and synthetic virus development amply funded, as are Pandemic Prevention and DNA/mRNA vaccines. Trump lifted the temporary ban on GOF research in 2017 and Fauci immediately resumed funding, some of which went to Wuhan

· Dr Fauci said there will be a surprise outbreak during the Trump administration. He said this in a speech in January 2017 – given at Georgetown University – on Pandemic Preparedness

· CEPI was founded in Davos in 2017 by the governments of Norway and India, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the World Economic Forum. Its mission is to stimulate and accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.

· In September 2019, European Commission (EC) “Roadmap on Vaccination” – months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out. The Roadmap will lead to a “commission proposal for a common vaccination card / passport for EU citizens by 2022”.

· In September 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board’s 15 board members issued their first annual report. Fauci and China’s CDC Director are both on the board (as is Russia)

In the report they state that by September 2020:

“The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen”

Of course, Event 201 occurred in October (following Crimson Contagion exercise in first half of 2019) and then comes COVID, supposedly in circulation at the start of October.

Pompeo called the COVID outbreak a “live exercise” in March.

What next? Operation Blackout? War with China (an exercise, not real)? another Pandemic virus or just a 2nd wave of COVID enhanced by a nasty new flu vaccine specially made for the elderly over-65 (Quadravalent Fluad)? Maybe all of the above? Guess we will have to see what comes.



Nice little trick but it will not work. Gates is at the forefront of pretty much everything leading to this corona fiasco. Now, people point at him so he needs to try to get closer to the public to save face. Make no mistake…Gates is nothing more than an opportunistic piece of filth who couldn’t care less about you. He is in it for huge profits…nothing more. He’s constantly pushing for more testing as he knows that the test RT-PCR is useless, hence helps in creating more ‘cases’. Bring the numbers up, scare citizens through bought and paid for media to push for his vaccine in the near future.

Bill Gates invested $10 billion in vaccines and made $200 billion in profits at the cost of paralyzing children in India and some African countries. Do you think he gives a shit about those kids? Everywhere he tested his polio vaccine in Africa ended up creating outbreaks of polio.

The pandemic was announced after a Mr. Neil Ferguson lead a team of people and organizations including: London’s Imperial College, as well as the World Health Organization, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and the Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and
Emergency Analytics, announced that millions would die from the coronavirus. Immediately after, countries started to lock down and close borders. What do they all have in common? They are all extremely well funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Again, Neil Ferguson and his team were very generously funded by Bill Gates. Coincidence? I don’t believe in coincidences.

More coincidences? Let me push this a bit further. Five months BEFORE the pandemic, a group created the “Event 201 Exercise” which was a “fictional” scenario to simulate a severe pandemic emergency. How’s that for a coincidence?

“Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical but scientifically plausible, pandemic. Fifteen global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.

“The exercise consisted of pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience.”

The event was funded by: The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They jointly propose an action plan which is exactly what was done since last March. You will find the link below stating what they recommended.

Let’s move another step forward…. Both The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and World Economic Forum are also extremely well-funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So, basically, they simply supported whatever the Gates family wanted.

Let this sink in for a minute… Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical but scientifically plausible pandemic that happened 5 months before the pandemic. An event completely done under the Gates rules.

You simply cannot have all those facts about Gates’ involvement from this exercise, the recommendations which were clearly followed right up to social media deleting everything that went against the scenario not to mention proof that the Gates funded Neil Ferguson and his report claiming millions will die forcing governments to lockdown, as well as the World Health Organization, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis and the Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics to support the narrative, and not aiming at the Gates’ for all of this mess.

In the ‘Plandemic’ video, they talk about how the US invested in the Wuhan lab coronavirus, proving that both China and the US were well aware of this virus. When it was released in China, it was not an accident! Someone was paid to do so. All the preparations were in place thanks to “Event 201,” so all they needed was to have that virus out in public. The US blames China while China blames the US – and they are both right. BiIl & Melinda Gates are extremely well-connected, including being on very good terms with China’s Xi Jinping.

The Gateses have been working on ‘tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management’ since 2013.

“May 2012 the World Health Assembly recommended the establishment of a comprehensive vaccination resource tracking system, as outlined in the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) developed by the Decade for Vaccines Collaboration.”… The world health assembly is part of the World Health Organization which is controlled by Bill Gates.

Bill Gates, who is not a doctor, or a scientist, much less a specialist in viruses, said: “I believe that humanity will beat this pandemic, but only when most of the population is vaccinated. Until then, life will not return to normal.” Who the FCK is he to say this and get away with it? Funny how no one ever questions what he says…right? When you are the richest man in the world, you buy everyone you need to get what you want.

https://www.centerforhealth…

Look at all the points including #7 where it states: “Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including through the use of technology.”

That’s exactly what was done since last March. All the scientists and doctors posting information that dared to go against the narrative saw their posts deleted. Coincidence?

If someone had told me that this “Event 201” happened, I would never have bought it without proof. Here it is now, for all to see.

When you have so many things pointing in the same direction, you need to see this for what it is: A well-prepared scenario to cripple the world, forcing citizens to acquiesce to complete control so that someone can make HUGE profits and take over control of humanity through “tracking vaccination coverage and logistics management”. Which company could take over tracking people, having electronic chips under your skin and follow you world wide? MICROSOFT!

Bill Gates in his own words: “through vaccines we can reduce the world population by 15 to 20 percent”. 

via GreatGameIndia

After it was revealed in a shocking investigation that WHO policies on Hydroxychloroquine were based on a fake study by a pornstar and a science-fiction writer, now in an ongoing investigation, a French doctor has testified in parliament that Gilead sent him death threats after he started talking about HCQ as a cure for COVID-19.

Gilead Sent Death Threats To Kill HCQ As COVID-19 Cure, French Dr Testifies In Parliament

In late March, a study by a French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult revealed that he was able to cure his 80 patients by administering hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

“By administering hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin, we were able to observe an improvement in all cases, except in one patient who arrived with an advanced form, who was over the age of 86…,” reported Fox News.

In late March, a study by a French research team led by the renowned epidemiologist Dr. Didier Raoult revealed that he was able to cure his 80 patients by administering hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

They were also able to demonstrate 91% effectiveness in more than 1,000 patients with zero side-effects.

In his tweets Dr. Raoult explained about his results:

New article published online by my teams: in vitro demonstration of the hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin synergy to counter SARS-COV2 replication In vitro testing of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin on SARS-CoV-2 shows synergistic effect.

New results from the IHU Méditerranée Infection: 80 patients treated with a hydroxychloroquine / azithromycin combination.

Our two articles published this evening allow us to continue to demonstrate:

1. The effectiveness of our protocol, on 80 patients.

2. The relevance of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, thanks to research carried out in our P3 containment laboratory.

Soon, Dr. Didier Raoult started receiving death threats. He filed a complaint for “death threats” and “acts of intimidation against a public service official” following which an investigation was opened by French Judiciary.

Now during a shocking testimony before the parliament, Dr. Raoult told lawmakers under oath that the person who sent him death threats was a top recipient of Gilead Pharmaceuticals.

Professor Raoult testified that, shortly after he started to talk about HCQ as a treatment, in March, he received anonymous death threats. He filed a complaint with the police, and an enquiry was opened by the French judiciary.

The medical doctor behind the threats was found and happens to be from a Nantes university hospital. It happened to be the person who received the most money from Gilead over the past 6 years.

Professor Raoult told members of the French parliament to open an investigation into Gilead Sciences. He also mentioned the stock exchange speculation that took place in connection with information becoming available regarding Remdesivir and HCQ. You can watch the entire testimony of Dr. Didier Raoul presented to the French Parliament on Wednesday June 24, here.

Earlier, in an investigation it was revealed that WHO policies on Hydroxychloroquine were influenced by a fake study by a pornstar and a Sci-Fi writer. An obscure US healthcare analytics company has come under sharp scrutiny for the integrity of its key studies that were published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. World Health Organization and several national governments changed their COVID-19 policies and treatment based on the faulty data provided by the company with a pornstar and a sci-fi writer on their payroll.

A report by GreatGameIndia on the history of Gilead Sciences revealed that behind the benign image of a vaccine manufacturer, Gilead Science has a dark history of allegations of bioterrorism, including having Pentagon to bomb a competitors factory under the false pretext of association with Al-Qaeda.

Gilead’s flu drug, Tamiflu, originally manufactured by Gilead Sciences, was criticized for being ineffective and even harmful. Chairman of Gilead Sciences Donald Rumsfeld and Board Member of Gilead, Former U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz profited heavily from a $1.5 billion stockpiling by the U.S. government on Tamiflu leading up to the 2009 H1N1 “swine flu” outbreak.

The interesting part is, Gilead was part of the vaccine lobby at whose behest the WHO faked the H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and kept it a secret from people until committees were setup which exposed the entire racket.

For latest updates on the outbreak check out our Coronavirus Coverage.

Send in your tips and submissions by filling out this form or write to us directly at the email provided. Join us on WhatsApp for more intel and updates.

GreatGameIndia is a journal on Geopolitics and International Relations. Get to know the Geopolitical threats India is facing in our exclusive book India in Cognitive Dissonance. Past magazine issues can be accessed from the Archives section.

Authored by Iain Davis via In-This-Together.com,

In Part 1 we defined the UK State and looked at the driving forces behind its lockdown response to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) declared COVID 19 “global” pandemic. Please read Part 1 first to appreciate the context of this article.

It appears that COVID 19 has been exploited to bring about a new global economic, social, cultural and political paradigm. Encapsulated as the Great Reset, this affords a technocratic parasite class, often wrongly referred to as the elite, centralised global control of all resources, including all human resources.

Though influential, the UK State is just one national component of this global agenda. In order to prepare us for global technocracy, which will be a dictatorship, we need to become more accustomed to obeying orders without question. Consequently the Lockdown response has been characterised by conflicting, ever shifting advice, both to condition people to arbitrary diktat and psychologically unbalance the public to better facilitate behaviour change.

We will cover a lot of ground in this article and I should warn you, it does not make comfortable reading. But please, if you have the time, grab yourself a coffee an we’ll discuss these important issues.

The WEF using COVID 19 for their Great Reset

The UK State & COVID 19 Behaviour Change

Population wide behaviour change techniques were promoted in the UK Cabinet Office’s 2010 document Mindspace: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy. Behaviour change (modification) has been widely adopted by the UK State as a means of controlling the populace.

So successful was the subsequent “nudge unit” that the UK State later privatised it, forming the Behavioural Insights Team. This enabled them to make a profit by selling their behaviour change expertise to other States, similarly seeking to control their own people.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the lead authors of the seminal MINDSPACE document included representatives from Imperial College, whose wildly inaccurate COVID 19 computer models underpinned lockdown policies, on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Rand corporation, a U.S. military industrialist complex think tank who former UK Chancellor Denis Healey described as “the leading think-tank for Pentagon.” The MINDSPACE authors state:

“Approaches based on ‘changing contexts’ – the environment within which we make decisions and respond to cues – have the potential to bring about significant changes in behaviour…….Our behaviour is greatly influenced by what our attention is drawn to…..People are more likely to register stimuli that are novel (messages in flashing lights), accessible (items on sale next to checkouts) and simple (a snappy slogan)……We find losses more salient than gains, we react differently when identical information is framed in terms of one or the other (as a 20% chance of survival or an 80% chance of death)……This shifts the focus of attention away from facts and information, and towards altering the context within which people act….Behavioural approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a ‘situated’ decision-maker, much of whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’. This raises the question: who decides on this choice environment?”

In response to the novel coronavirus, the UK State has defined our choice environment. It is the environment that best suits its policy objectives. One created by exploiting the COVID 19 pandemic in order to prepare all of us for the Great Reset.

This behavioural change approach avoids the need to make convincing arguments with facts and information. This could risk potential challenge. Evidence based debate is not welcome, and not part of behaviour change.

Better to target the population with fear inducing propaganda, censor any dissent, and frame public opinion within an altered context. Thus moving the people away from being autonomous individuals, who make rational decisions, towards situated decision makers controlled by their choice environment.

With the real risks of COVID 19 well known, on March 19th 2020, just over a week after the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic, both Public Health England (PHE) and the UK government Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) agreed that COVID 19 was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID.) They downgraded it due to low overall mortality rates.

The UK State knew that COVID 19 was unlikely to kill sufficient numbers to justify the massive re-engineering of society and economic destruction required to bring about the Great Reset.Therefore, it resorted to coercion, statistical manipulation and propaganda to convince the people be terrified of the relatively low level COVID 19 risks.

With the support of the ever obedient mainstream media (MSM,) who have been directly funded by the UK government throughout the crisis, the UK State turned to its behavioural change experts. These included the Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviour (SPI-B for short.)

Spi-B’s role, during the crisis, has been to advise the State how to use behavioural change techniques to convince the people to obey its orders without question. Three days after COVID 19 was downgraded from an HCID, Spi-B recommended the following:

1. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.
2. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.
3. Consider use of social disapproval (via the MSM) for failure to comply.

(Bracketed information added)

A free and independent media could not be “used” in this fashion to scare people without cause. Only a controlled MSM propaganda machine can possibly achieve this. The convincing myth that the western MSM is a free and independent media is one of the greatest propaganda coups in history.

Spi-B don’t believe that anyone who disagrees, and subsequently refuses to comply, with the UK State’s tranche of Lockdown policies, has any legitimate concerns. Rather they call them complacent.

To ensure that resulting non compliance doesn’t take hold, those who do stand against the tyranny of the common interest, are to be marginalised by subjecting them to the social disapproval of the terrified majority. Spi-B recommended:

“Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific……The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging……Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others….Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.”

Led By Nothing

Thanks to the behaviour change efforts of the UK State and its MSM, if you scrutinise the official COVID 19 statistics, social disapproval, alleging that you don’t care about people dying, is heaped upon you. This is nonsense, but effective. Not because it stops criticism, but because it frames the objections as the acts of callous monsters. Hence, the MSM’s reliance upon hard-hitting emotional messaging.

Very sad losses exploited for propaganda purposes

Early in the crisis, an example of the hard hitting emotional message came in the form of MSM stories about NHS staff who had all supposedly died from COVID 19. In any rational society it would go without saying that, of course, these people’s deaths were a tragedy.

Analysis from the Health Service Journal showed that, with millions of employees, NHS staff were statistically less likely to die from COVID 19 than the general public. While the MSM didn’t report these findings, it was left, as usual, to the so called alternative media to question power, and reveal the deceptive use of the statistics to as many people as they could.

Using snappy slogans, the UK State encouraged the nation to “clap for the NHS.” In combination with the hard-hitting emotional messages, this was part of the process of creating the controlled choice environment.

For a wider public of situated decision makers, this further strengthened social disapproval for anyone who questioned Lockdown health policies. To point out that the health impacts of the Lockdown would be significantly worse than COVID 19 was to question the NHS. An act of heresy.

This strategy was essential for the UK State because the COVID 19 statistics do not support its own fearful narrative. Even if you accept the official accounts, should you contract COVID 19 in the UK, the chances of it leading to death are between 0.3 – 0.4%. If you are infected, you have at least a 99.6% chance of survival.

This almost certainly explains why the UK State decided not to report recovery rates. The rationale given for this was that the “modelling used to calculate it was complex.”

However, to date, despite promising to publish this statistic, the UK State still doesn’t report recovery rates. It seems counting people diagnosed with COVID 19, who don’t die, is too complex. While it is incapable of simple subtraction, most people are willing to accept all the other UK State COVID 19 statistics that the MSM report to them ad nauseam.

Claimed UK deaths from COVID 19 are nominally 41,486 (at the time of writing) This means, according to UK State statistics, the global pandemic has allegedly led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population with the median age of death being 82 in England and Wales.

Like nearly every other mortality risk, the chances of dying from COVID 19 increase significantly with age. Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from standard population risk. Bluntly, the belief that COVID 19 presents some sort of dire, plague like threat is irrational and based upon nothing but persistent fear porn.

Initially, the UK MSM widely reported that COVID 19 could kill more than half a million British people. On the 12th March the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a press conference in which he warned of significant loss of life. Preceded by the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who repeated the preposterous suggestion that more than half a million people could die, Boris Johnson told the British public:

“It is going to spread further and I must level with you, I must level with the British public: many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time.”

This terrifying statement was not based upon the WHO’s declaration of a pandemic. The WHO has nothing to say about mortality, only the worldwide spread of a disease. Johnson’s statement was not based upon the available data either.

It was founded entirely upon computer modelled predictions of Imperial College London COVID 19 Response Team. So far in 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMFG) have given Imperial College more than $86 million.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson terrifying the nation

As is the norm with the Imperial College’s modelled pandemic predictions, they were hopelessly inaccurate. On every occasion they have grossly overestimated mortality and have never erred by way of underestimation. Always for the financial gain of pharmaceutical corporations.

Imperial College’s lunatic COVID 19 predictions were questioned by the wider scientific community at the time. Among them were Nobel laureate biophysicist Michael Levitt, who immediately highlighted the problems with their models; Professor of global public health Devi Sridhar pointed out that Imperial had presented nothing more than a hypothesis and microbiologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, questioning the predictions, called the global state response to COVID 19 “grotesque” and warned that the lockdown response would be far more dangerous than COVID 19.

Scientists from around the world raised their concerns. They repeatedly warned that the science underpinning the alarm was weak. However, their voices were largely censored as the UK MSM advanced the UK State narrative without question. Perhaps, in part, because they were paid to do so by the UK State.

Imperial College’s pandemic predictions have consistently delivered nothing but statistical dross. To imagine that no one within the UK State knew this, prior to cherry picking their report, as claimed justification for their subsequent lockdown, is ridiculous.

Whether written for the purpose, or seized upon to fit the purpose, it seems Imperial College’s fantasy predictions were selected solely to promote Lockdown policies. With tight control of the MSM narrative, the UK State simply ignored the real science and trotted out its meaningless “led by the science” propaganda soundbite. A simple, snappy slogan maintaining the public’s altered context within their choice environment.

It is not credible for Professor Mark Woolhouse, a member of Spi-B, to now state that the Lockdown was a monumental mistake. Practically the only body of scientific opinion which believed Imperial College was the one firmly attached to the UK State, such as Spi-B, who were equally committed to Lockdown policies.

The UK State had to disregard the weight of global scientific opinion, deliberately choose the fictitious computer models and actively deceive the public, falsely claiming their policy was “led by the science.”

It was no mistake.

Fixing the Numbers

Due to the lack of an unprecedented threat, it appears the UK State has instead fixed the numbers, maximised case numbers and mortality figures, fed its statistical rubbish into its MSM propaganda machine and then exploited the resultant fear, of a fake unprecedented threat, to achieve the desired behaviour change. This necessitated a continually shifting narrative, both to compensate for encroaching reality and to keep the population constantly confused and psychologically open to suggestion as a result.

One of the UK State’s first responses to the pandemic was to create a new, entirely unnecessary, death registration process. One so opaque and prone to manipulation and error, it practically guaranteed the meaningless statistics we have been given.

In late March, before the recorded peak in mortality during the second week of April, the UK State instructed the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to record all “mentions” of COVID 19 on death certificates as proof of death from COVID 19. The new death registration system meant a COVID 19 death could be recorded without the decedent either testing positive or receiving any examination by a qualified doctor, either prior to death or postmortem.

UK government statistics – PHE have only recently been recording 28 day mortality – we have no real idea what these mortality statistics are recording

The UK State split its testing regime into “pillars.” Pillar 1 focused upon swab testing (RT-PCR) the most vulnerable, the seriously ill and front line key-workers in state healthcare settings. Pillar 2 expanded the testing to include essential workers in the social care and other sectors. However, RT-PCR, used in Pillars 1 and 2, is incapable of identifying a virus and was not designed as a diagnostic test.

The UK State’s Pillar 3 relies upon antibody testing. So far, this has been a complete disaster, characterised mainly by expensive outlay on tests that don’t work which, if they did, wouldn’t reveal anything useful anyway.

The Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) petitioned the UK government, raising numerous concerns. Firstly they highlighted that current antibody tests were clinically incapable of indicating either the level of infection (asymptomatic rates) or any possible acquired immunity. There were no benchmark tests, nor any data, to assure the quality of these non-evidence based tests which consequently provided no value to health professionals trying to treat patients. The RCP concluded that their only perceivable use was for very broad research purposes. These findings were backed up by the prestigious Cochrane Review, who stated:

“We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies…

…It is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID‐19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID‐19 tests requires considerable improvement.”

Pillar 4 (surveillance testing) takes tests from Pillars 1 – 3, whether saliva swabs of antibody blood tests, which the UK State then claims it uses to learn more about the prevalence and spread of the virus. Though the chances of the flawed RT-PCR and antibody tests producing anything cogent appears negligible. What is more certain is that there are multinational corporations with a firm grasp of the UK State’s testing procedures and subsequent data analysis.

Even if someone tests positive, anywhere up to 80% of these people are asymptomatic. Meaning they do not have COVID 19, the syndrome that may, in as little as 20% of cases, result from an infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Reporting a so called spike in “cases” is a vacuous claim. A large number of the positive RT-PCR tests will be wrong, up to 80% of those who test positive won’t develop COVID 19 and, of those that do, 99.6% will survive, of which more than 80% will experience COVID 19 as little more than a cold.

The actual threat from a claimed “spike in cases” is diminutive. The eternal MSM alarmism, reporting terrifying case numbers and highly speculative causes of death, is pure propaganda.

It was Pillar 2 that established community testing, providing pharmaceutical corporations further, significant influence over policy and the physical response. The collected swabs are analysed at the UK Lighthouse Labs. The data and resources are provided by the vaccine producing, pharmaceutical giants Astrazeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Creating an enormous conflict of financial interest within the Pillar testing program.

A Lighthouse Lab

From the outset Pillar 2 data collection was plagued with problems. For example, multiple tests from one individual were counted as separate positive cases and tests were prematurely counted as complete, before the results were even available. Pillar 2 testing was so poor, the UK State simply wiped off 30,302 reported cases due to methodological errors and were forced to suspend all reporting of Pillar 2 test results in late May.

Throughout the crisis, Public Health England, an agency of the UK government Department of Health, received notification of every death. They then cross referenced the test data, much of it from Lighthouse Labs, to check if the deceased had ever tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Up to 80% of whom could have been completely free of COVID 19.

No matter what the decedent died from, whether it was cancer or a road accident, and no matter when the positive test was taken, possibly months prior to death, PHE recorded it as a COVID 19 death. Only after this practice was discovered did PHE change their methodology, removing 5,377 deaths from the official mortality figures overnight.

The Great Reset aims to centralise all power and authority. Therefore it is no surprise that the UK State’s response to the supposedly deplorable performance of its own government department (PHE), has been pounced upon to justify the centralisation of its power and authority. The new Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) will initially be led by Dr Clare Gardiner, a former GCHQ operative and former director of the National Cyber Security Centre.

The JBC will issue the biosecurity alerts that will control our daily lives. By amalgamating PHE with NHS Test and Trace and the JBC, the UK State has removed the notion of public health and replaced it with biosecurity.

In the future biosecurity UK State it is difficult to see how anyone won’t have COVID 19. The JBC definition ranges from “confirmed”, to include asymptomatic cases, “linked cases”, people who may or may not have the COVID 19 but may have once met someone who tested positive, “probable”, someone in a Lockdown area with possible symptoms and “possible”, someone who may have symptoms.

Only the “discarded,” people who haven’t been tracked and traced, who don’t live in Lockdown areas and haven’t got any symptoms at all (ie. they don’t have a cold,) will be free from the clutches of the JBC. But only after they have passed their surveillance checks.

As the reported mortality rate declined sharply, in late April the UK State instructed the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to report “suspected” COVID 19 care home deaths to the ONS. Adding thousands to the COVID 19 mortality figures in an instant.

From this point forward, COVID 19 didn’t even need to be mentioned on a care home resident’s death certificate for them to be added to the ONS’ mortality count. The MSM then reported the COVID 19 horror to a terrified public, without question or pause.

There are no sound reasons to believe any of the UK State’s official COVID 19 statistics. From the registration of deaths, through testing to data collection, analysis and reporting, the whole system is either a complete shambles, irretrievably corrupt or a combination of the two. No one, especially the MSM, know what the real COVID 19 mortality statistics or case numbers are.

Sadly, all we can do is count the dead. Which raises a gut churning possibility.

From all cause mortality, we can estimate something approaching of the true COVID 19 mortality figure. Research by the Italian Ministry of Health found that around 12% of recorded COVID 19 deaths in Italy could be accurately desscribed as such. Similarly, researchers at the U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC) found that around 6% of COVID 19 reported deaths were directly attributable to the disease.

All globalist States, such as Italy, the U.S. and the UK, have slightly different death registration and statistical processes. In addition, for a number of decedents, while their primary cause of death was their pre-existing comorbidity, COVID 19 probably did hasten their deaths.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the UK State, an estimate of 30%, for genuine COVID 19 deaths, can reasonably be applied to the reported mortality statistics. Suggesting that the true figure is closer to 12,500 rather than 41,500. This places the real public health risk of COVID 19 well below recent seasonal influenza.

In England, in 2014-2015, PHE estimates attributed more than 34,000 deaths to influenza in the first 15 weeks of the year, and in 2015-2017 more than 17,000. COVID 19 is not, and never was, at any stage, more dangerous than the flu. People only believe it is, and that belief is based upon little more than statistical drivel and MSM scaremongering.

Nonetheless, there has been a significant spike in all cause mortality this year which does not conform to the usual, seasonal patterns. One that corresponds precisely with the UK State’s Lockdown policies to bring about the conditions for the Great Reset. The disquieting reality appears to be that these are Lockdown deaths, not COVID 19 deaths.

It seems at least 29,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society have died before their time. I have very recently lost my father and, while most of the lives lost, falsely attributed to COVID 19, may only have been shortened by a few months, I speak from acute sorrow in the certainty that every moment with a loved one is precious beyond measure.

Fixing the Narrative

Initially the State said the purpose of it’s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve. The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases. However, this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded.

The anticipated surge never happened because the predictive models it was supposedly based upon were junk. There were some notable COVID 19 hotspots, but nationally the NHS was effectively closed to virtually every condition but COVID 19.

The much publicised Nightingale hospitals were nothing but expensive white elephants and, at the height of the global pandemic, the NHS was practically deserted in the UK. However, the “flatten the curve” fable was sufficient for the UK State to shutdown the productive economy and propel the country into a totally needless state of panic.

After “flatten the curve”, public attention was firmly drawn towards deaths, rather than the unreported survival rates. These were delivered with the flashing lights of alarming mainstream media (MSM) headlines, as the meaningless figures were made accessible through daily COVID 19 “emergency” updates. A steady supply of simple snappy slogans (stay home, protect the NHS, save lives etc.) ensured the situated decision makers remained firmly entrenched within the altered context of their choice environment.

Data from the UK Government and Google – Collated by The Human Unleashed

There was never any public health rationale for the UK State’s Lockdown policies. Rather than exposing the virus to rapid extinction in the summer sun, the UK State instead ordered people to stay in their own homes where community infections were at their worse. In 2019, this was well known to the WHO.

The WHO reported that, for viral respiratory infections, quarantining exposed individuals (quarantining the healthy – by placing families under house arrest), was “not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure;” The isolation of sick individuals should only be done for limited periods and was not recommended for “individuals who need to seek medical attention;” workplace closures should only be considered in, “extraordinarily severe pandemics;” there is “no obvious rationale” for contact tracing and wearing face masks was not recommended because, “there is no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission.”

The UK State’s Lockdown policy was the complete antithesis of the WHO’s own, previously recommended, procedure for managing a viral respiratory pandemic. Quarantining the healthy and then re-orientating health care services maximised the risk to the most vulnerable, something which never made any sense. At least, not if saving lives was the priority.

A recent study by the Queens Nursing Institute found the following practices, commonly operating in Care Homes, at the height of the Lockdown pandemic:

“Having to accept patients from hospitals with unknown Covid-19 status, being told about plans not to resuscitate residents without consulting families, residents or care home staff…..21% of respondents said that their home accepted people discharged from hospital who had tested positive for Covid-19…..a substantial number found it difficult to access District Nursing and GP services….25% in total reporting it somewhat difficult or very difficult during March-May 2020.”

These life threatening practices were a direct result of official guidance, issued by registration bodies and health services, in response to the UK State’s Lockdown policies.

The NHS issued guidance stating care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital; they operated an apparent policy of discharging COVID 19 positive patients into care homes; GP’s were advised not to visit care settings, with consultation conducted without examination via video calls; ambulance response times increased dramatically, practically removing vital emergency care the most vulnerable; essential PPE for care home staff wasn’t supplied, further reducing their capacity to care for those most at risk; testing for COVID 19 wasn’t extended to care settings, leaving care staff confused and uncertain of the risk, with furlough further reducing staffing levels; there were widespread reports of residents having “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices attached to their care plans, without their knowledge or consent, and this practice seemingly extended to other vulnerable adults, such as those with learning difficulties.

There is little to no evidence that children are either at risk from COVID 19 or spread SARS-CoV-2 to adults. However there is evidence that children are dying as a result of UK State Lockdown policies. Yet still the MSM persist with the dangerous claim the COVID 19 is a childhood risk.

By the mid June the UK COVID 19 mortality risk was negligible and the so called pandemic was effectively over. There has been no significant excess mortality in England for more than 13 weeks. Since mid June deaths in care settings have been at or below normal levels and COVID 19 has accounted for less illness and death than combined influenza and pneumonia.

Therefore the MSM State propaganda shifted towards cases and face masks. Masks which we are told will save us from the COVID 19 respiratory virus but clearly have no impact whatsoever upon influenza.

In reality, this was done to distract the public from the fact that there was no justification for continued Lockdown policies and to shift their attention to a new narrative in preparation for the “second wave.”

For months, the UK State consistently told the public that face masks were entirely unnecessary. After years of gold standard science, demonstrating no viral benefit to wearing face masks, suddenly they became mandatory. This was a purely political decision and certainly wasn’t led by any science.

The WHO did not recommend face masks but were then pressurised by national governments to change their advice. Because there was no science to inform this decision, the WHO hastily cobbled together some meta-analysis, which somehow missed every single randomised control trial showing how ineffective masks are, in order to falsely claim the science had recently changed.

Like virtually every other aspect of the supposed COVID 19 pandemic, the only scientific basis for this policy is behavioural science. It continues the process of creating altered contexts for situated decision makers who are no longer autonomous but now behave automatically in response to their choice environment.

The Hard Wired Second Wave

The UK State is not unique. It is just one of a number of globalist States that have colluded to foist the COVID 19 scamdemic upon the world. The Great Reset is a centrally devised and controlled global objective for all partners States.

To say that COVID 19 is a scamdemic is not to allege that it isn’t a deadly disease. It has caused terrible, but far from unprecedented, loss of life and every death leaves a gaping hole that can never be repaired. Our only hope is that we learn to live with pain.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it

In the effort to create the social, economic and political conditions for the Great Reset the UK State is among those who have condemned people to die alone, torn from their loved ones. The sickening truth of the scamdemic is that these heartbreaking losses have been exploited to control the living.

This has been done for the sole benefit of a vile, uncaring parasite class. They have global control only because we allow it and the vast majority passively give consent without even knowing it. Constantly directed as situated decision makers, fed nothing but propaganda to ensure their automatic behaviour.

We won’t rid ourselves of the malevolent rule of the parasite class by using a party political system built to protect them, and advance their interests. Other peaceful solutions exist and we must pursue them or suffer this malignancy forever.

It is not enough for the them that people die isolated and afraid, nor that entire populations live in gratuitous fear. The Great Reset offers them the promise of the New World Order technocracy and the vaccine controlled, global biosecurity State.

It seems that we have all been set up for the second wave, hard wired into the scamdemic from the start. The final push to permanently frame the choice environment.

Analysis shows that the phrase “second wave” was trending from the day that PHE downgraded COVID 19, due to low mortality rates. The trend spiked significantly as mortality declined below all cause averages and again when it approached statistical zero.

Data from the UK Government and Google – Collated by The Human Unleashed

The UK State’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) recently leaked a report to the MSM claiming that 85,000 people could die from COVID 19 in the UK this winter. This followed the claims of former GlaxoSmithKline R&D President and current Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK State, Sir Patrick Vallance, who claimed 120,000 would die.

The Scientific evidence shows that COVID 19 reaches the Herd Immunity Threshold (HIT) at around 20% of the population, or even less. At this stage, it appears the virus has burned out and is incapable of infecting or making more people sick, save for the tiny minority with severely compromised immune systems. In the UK, it seems it has long passed this threshold.

Further evidence shows that a sizeable proportion of human beings, possibly up to 60%, already carry T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from previous coronavirus and SARS infections. This part of the population was never at any significant risk.

There is no apparent need for a vaccine and, despite the clear suppression of treatments that could have potentially saved thousands, the fact that cases continue to rise, while hospital admission and deaths are virtually nothing, demonstrates that the COVID 19 pandemic is finished. The only thing the UK State’s testing programs are allegedly finding are residual infections that present virtually no risk to anybody. The increase in “cases” is directly proportional to the increasing number of tests.

Yet none of that matters to the State planners and propagandist pedlars of the scamdemic. Their hard-hitting emotional messaging is divorced from informing the public. A significant proportion of the MSM has been co-opted to serve nothing and no one but the parasite class.

Despite the fact that it is now certain that Lockdowns are the worst possible response to COVID 19, still SAGE “experts” argue for further, various Lockdown measures that absolutely don’t work. The only fathomable reason for this is to continue preparations for the Great Reset. Either that, or SAGE are collectively, scientifically illiterate.

A recent study by health-tech contractors Medefer estimated that the Lockdown response, to the low level threat of COVID 19, has left more than 15 million people waiting for vital health care. While this report should be treated with some caution, as Medefer are one of many private companies hoping to swoop in and profit from the Lockdown accelerated destruction of the NHS, it is beyond doubt that millions of people will suffer irreparable health damage from the Lockdown. Mental health charities have warned of the Lockdown’s devastating impact.

Totally unnecessary

The political response to this has been to argue about the definition of waiting lists. This is because the political class are the otiose puppets of the parasite class and, as such, they don’t provide any public benefit at all. In every sense, they are just the expensive illusion of democracy.

Homelessness has reached 320,000 in the UK and freedom of information requests reveal that, in England alone, nearly 20,000 household have been made technically homeless during the Lockdown. As we discussed in Part 1 the economic destruction delivered by the lockdown is unprecedented. The link between poverty and a wide range of health inequalities is beyond dispute.

With its Lockdown, the UK State has created a health crisis that will make current Lockdown and COVID 19 deaths seem like a minor, public health hiccup. Given what appears to be the appalling statistical deception and rancid propaganda that the UK State has relied upon thus far, it is easy to see how the second wave deception could emerge.

This autumn, with it’s disorienting death registration process in place, and a population of immune suppressed, mask wearing, recently released detainees facing the usual seasonal flu and pneumonia risks, the UK State, and its supplicant MSM, have everything ready to create a psychological operation beyond imagination. The likely objective will be to consolidate on the work already done, and permanently transform the people from a population of autonomous individuals, capable of rational thought into a herd of situated decision makers whose behaviour is automatic and influenced by their ‘choice environment’.

The Lockdown’s existing impact upon treatments for cancer, heart disease, and a range of serious, life threatening conditions, combined with huge waiting lists, struggling health services and the normal excess winter pressures upon the NHS, will be more than enough to create an appalling health crisis. All slickly blamed upon the second wave of COVID 19 .

I truly hope I am wrong. However, it is by no means beyond the UK State to do this.

If it again claims people need to be placed under house arrest; should it insist we can’t be with our loved ones, that we must avoid each other, literally like the plague; if it labels anyone who disagrees a “COVID denier” and starts “quarantining” people who don’t comply, then you will have a choice to make.

You can be a situated decision makers, or you can be an an autonomous individual, making rational decisions. It’s not hard. Just stop believing everything you are told, especially from the likes of me, do some independent research, take a long hard look at the evidence, and decide for yourself if you can give any credence to the claims of the UK State and its global partners.

* * *

Click here to support In This Together blog.

Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson

Something rather odd is happening in the two Europeans nations worst hit by Covid-19. The UK and Italy have a rising number of cases but a stable and very low number of deaths, even weeks after the cases started rising again.

At the time of writing, the UK records 1750 new cases daily and one death in a population of 67 million. With a roughly similar population and an average of 602 cases a day, Italy has had just over four deaths a day over the last month. The ratio of cases to deaths is nowhere near what it was at the height of the pandemic. The other notable feature is a shift of cases to a younger population.

UK: Covid tests vs hospital cases

There can be several explanations for this trend. First, the viral agent may have mutated to a less virulent form. Although there are some published studies showing minor mutations, these are what you would expect from an RNA virus which is inherently unstable (think of the influenza viruses, which perpetually change their suits).

Second, we may have got better at dealing with Covid-19. Apart from dexamethasone in the small population admitted to intensive care units, there are no specific treatments for the disease, and as we are not observing a substantial increase in admissions or severity of the disease, this seems also an unlikely explanation.

Third, our preventive measures may have worked, only allowing new cases when lapses have occurred. If this were the case we would expect effectiveness against all forms of acute respiratory infections, like the winter illnesses. This has indeed happened in the Southern hemisphere, but the age shift does not fit with this theory.

A fourth possible and much more complex explanation is what we call the ‘reality problem’. There is rapidly accumulating evidence that the tests used worldwide to identify cases in a binary mode ‘Yes or No’ are being used in a simplistic and uncoordinated way. We have already explained the limits of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to carry out mass testing.

PCR is a very sensitive test, which means that it detects the smallest fragments of the virus it is looking for by amplifying the sample millions of times. However, a fragment is not a whole virus, capable of replication and of infecting other human beings. It is a small part of the viral structure that the PCR primer is looking for, not the whole microorganism. Only whole viruses can infect us.

In addition, the number of amplification cycles necessary to reach a ‘positive test’ is rarely reported. We now know that his is a vital piece of information in interpreting results. A very high number of cycles may detect fragments and give a positive result but a lower number of cycles is far more likely to identify infected and infectious individuals requiring quarantine.

You would expect all of this to be reported in a PCR results but it is not routinely done. There is worse news to come. A very sensitive test is vulnerable to contamination with extraneous genetic material (hence the need for suiting up operators). The rapid expansion of testing capacity may have degraded our capacity for sterility by increasing throughput and straining lab staff training. We also have come across studies looking at the different performance of PCR kits on the same sample and the results are not encouraging, with wide variation in cycle thresholds for the same positive results indicating the absolute requirement to standardised tests worldwide continuously comparing procedures and performance of testing against the only real gold standard for gauging a person’s contagiousness: viral culture.

Evidence is mounting that a good proportion of ‘new’ mild cases and people re-testing positives after quarantine or discharge from hospital are not infectious, but are simply clearing harmless virus particles which their immune system has efficiently dealt with. Those whose immunity is more active are exactly in the age group of observed ‘positives’ and least likely to end with severe disease.

So, we appear to have the reality of viral circulation, probably waning fast and the perceived reality of a misused and simply interpreted genial test which can be used to great effect when viral circulation is far higher (making it more likely a positive test correctly identifies the virus) or in finding traces of bugs which are good at hiding in our bodies, or their fragments in waste waters indicating their presence at some time in the past.

To avoid this dual reality and the dangers of isolating non-infectious people or whole communities we need an international effort to standardise testing, periodic calibration against culture or other recognised measures of infectiousness and strict laboratory protocols and procedures probably with a central licensing authority. A lot more work needs to be done to correlate cycle thresholds, patients’ characteristics and intelligence on virus circulation. Medicine and public health are about people, not printouts.

The scientists discovered that, despite people with Covid-19 being infectious for only around a week, one test used to detect the disease can still give a positive reading weeks after the patient has recovered.

WRITTEN BY

Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson

Carl Heneghan is professor of evidence-based medicine at the University of Oxford and director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Tom Jefferson is a senior associate tutor and honorary research fellow at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford

via Sputnik

Leading international scientific journal The Lancet has published the results of the first two stages of clinical trials for the Russian COVID-19 vaccine.

Sputnik has spoken to the vaccine developers at the Gamaleya Centre, Alexander Gintsburg and Denis Logunov, as well as the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev, to find out what data the article cites and why it is so important for the global scientific community.

Today, less than a month after the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine was registered, the world’s most influential scientific journal The Lancet has published the results of the first two stages of clinical trials, so highly-anticipated by both the Russian and international scientific community.

The article responds to foreign criticism and provides long-awaited clarity. The Russian scientists’ development, which turned out to be the world’s first registered coronavirus vaccine, is not only effective but safe.

Start of a Series of Publications

The Lancet has published the results of the first two stages of clinical trials and, according to the vaccine developers at the Gamaleya Centre, this is going to be the first step towards a series of publications about the Sputnik V vaccine in scientific journals.

“In September, a complete study of the vaccine in animals, primates, Syrian hamsters, transgenic mice, in which the vaccine has shown 100% protective efficacy (results in primates and Syrian hamsters were obtained before clinical trials), will be published. The first results of the ongoing post-registration clinical trial involving 40,000 volunteers will be published in October-November”.

‘Vaccine With Proven Safety’

The Sputnik V vaccine’s safety is one of the main conclusions cited in the article. According to the first and second-stage clinical trial results, the scientists didn’t find any serious adverse effects from the vaccine regarding any of the evaluated criteria. Not all candidate vaccines can boast of such results, some have noted up to 25% experiencing serious adverse effects.

Long-Term Immunity

The Lancet also cites scientific evidence of the Sputnik V vaccine’s effectiveness. For example, evidence of the treatment’s ability to launch a long-term immune response to the coronavirus in 100% of those vaccinated due to its unique two-stage introduction technology. According to Denis Logunov, deputy research director at the Gamaleya Centre, a humoral and cellular immune response, which is enough to protect a person from COVID-19, has been observed in 100% of those vaccinated.

“The antibody levels in vaccinated volunteers was 1.4-1.5 times higher than in those who had recovered. For reference, Britain’s AstraZeneca vaccine showed an antibody level roughly equal to the antibody level in those who had had the coronavirus infection”.

Scientists at the Gamaleya Centre confirm that in the context of Sputnik V clinical trials, all of the volunteers developed T-cell immunity, represented by both CD4+ and CD8+ cells, making it possible to recognise and destroy coronavirus-infected cells.

‘The Vaccine Will Work in 100% of Cases’

One of the scientific community’s biggest fears regarding the use of human adenoviral vector vaccines — the technology used in Sputnik V — was the pre-existing immunity to adenoviruses in some people.

In other words, there was a concern that our immunity might not allow the required amount of human adenovirus into the body. This serves as a kind of “taxi” in the vaccine, delivering the outer shell genetic material of the coronavirus into the cells (it’s important that the coronavirus itself doesn’t enter the body with the vaccine, which completely eliminates the possibility of infection).

Due to people often getting sick with adenoviruses (like the common cold), they could have developed immunity, which theoretically could reduce the adenovirus vaccine’s effectiveness. However, the results of the trials presented by the Gamaleya Centre scientists prove otherwise: pre-existing immunity doesn’t affect the vaccine’s effectiveness.

“We’ve chosen the optimal safe dosage, providing an effective immune response in 100% of those vaccinated, including those who have recently had adenovirus infections. This reduces the urgency of developing new vaccines based on untested platforms”.

According to the representatives of the Gamaleya Centre, what is meant by unverified platforms are developments of some Western companies, that started out of concerns regarding human adenoviruses. Some of these developments, such as mRNA technology (Moderna’s vaccine) or chimpanzee adenovirus (AstraZeneca’s vaccine), have never been used to create registered vaccines.

Such drugs need long-term testing because of concerns regarding their effect on the body’s reproductive functions or the possible high carcinogenic properties that lead to cancer, the centre concluded.

In the article, Russian scientists refer to studies about the safety of the platform on which the Sputnik V vaccine is based.

“Since 1953, more than 250 clinical trials have been carried out globally, and more than 75 international articles have been published confirming the safety of vaccines and drugs based on this platform”, Denis Logunov explained.

“Human adenoviral vectors-based drugs have been used for over 15 years. In particular, these are Ebola vaccines and the anti-cancer Gendicine, which has been used in China for over 12 years”.

Unique Two-Vector Technology

According to Alexander Gintsburg, Sputnik V’s unique feature is using two adenoviruses, serotypes 5 and 26, in two separate vaccinations. Today, many experts recognise double vaccination as a factor that can significantly enhance immunity to the coronavirus.

However, if the same vector is used for two vaccinations, the immune system triggers defence mechanisms and begins rejecting the second-injection drug. This problem is solved by using two vectors in Sputnik V, which helps avoid the described neutralising effect.

Gamaleya vs AstraZeneca

Responding to criticism about the insufficient number of volunteers for the two-vector vaccine, the scientists recalled that they managed to test this system on a wider range of people than, for example, one of the leading vaccine candidates, AstraZeneca, did.

The British pharmaceutical giant used four times fewer volunteers during the first two trial stages to determine their two-vector vaccine’s effectiveness.

“The number of volunteers involved in testing the Russian Sputnik V vaccine during stages 1 and 2, carried out with two injections, was 4 times higher than the number of people AstraZeneca involved”, Kirill Dmitriev said.

‘The Only Safe Technology’

Last week, the US Food and Drug Administration announced the possible use of accelerated registration for vaccine candidates due to the current epidemiological situation, without a third phase of clinical trials on tens of thousands of volunteers.

The British authorities also spoke about the possibility of a similar approach. At the same time, according to these countries’ regulators, accelerated registration will only be possible for vaccines that have already proven their effectiveness and safety.

According to Russian specialists, there are not very many drugs that meet these requirements.

“To date, the only one meeting these criteria is a human adenoviral vector platform. It has proven its safety through several decades of numerous studies”, Kirill Dmitriev said.

The Lancet Publication is the ‘Final Answer’

Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, explained that The Lancet’s publication of the clinical trial results is “the final answer in the round of questions directed against Russia” following the Sputnik V’s registration in August.

“In turn, Russia can now ask some questions to the international community. We are calling to publishing official data that would prove the long-term efficacy of chimpanzee adenovirus or mRNA-based vaccines, the absence of any carcinogenic risks and effects on fertility when used. We would also like to know why AstraZeneca is pushing for a legal disclaimer for unwanted side effects”.