Over the past several months I have posted, on Facebook and Twitter, a number of links, with comments, that question the coherence of the narrative surrounding Covid-19 and responses to it including lockdowns, masks and vaccines. For me these are part of an ongoing conversation that, I believe, it is imperative that we have.
Dissent and Concerns regarding the Safety of Vaccines
- “We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognise that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations.”
Doctors for Covid Ethics
- “Our most serious concern re ALL the gene-based vaccines is that you convey the impression that cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is a very rare adverse event. In fact the opposite is probably true. The cardinal symptoms of CVST dominate the list of adverse reactions:
nausea and vomiting
paralysis of varying degrees in various locations
loss of motor control (including such severe loss that victims mimic the symptoms of Huntington’s Chorea).
It is imperative that proper medical attention is given to every individual who presents with any of the above symptoms.”
- “An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling turn over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to share stories of loved ones who died of Covid after refusing or delaying to get the vaccine.
Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who died after vaccination and, even worse, from adverse reactions to the vaccine.”
World Tribune Article
- There is mounting evidence of harms caused by vaccines and it appears worse than even I thought. I have previously conceded that the benefits of vaccination probably outweigh the risks in older and elderly people, but even this is questionable. The article should be considered closely but this section stood out for me:
“The Executive Director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund then pointed out some serious concerns over data coming out of ISRAEL.
The real numbers confirm that we kill more than we save. And I would love to look at the Israel ministry of health data on the 90+ year olds where we went from a 94.4% vaccinated group to 82.9% vaccinated in the last 4 months.
“in the most optimistic it means that 50% of the vaccinated people died and 0% of unvaccinated people died. Unless you can explain that to the public you cannot approve the boosters.”
Manipulation, Suppression and Propaganda
- I think this is an important as well as interesting article. A key insight is that the presentation of pro masking and pro vaxxing as socially responsible and altruistic is a hook for demonising, dehumanising, attitudes.
- The idea that the government is ‘guided by the science’ in it’s response to the pandemic is simply false. The notion that those supporting the use of masks, lockdowns, vaccines and vaccine passports are unquestionably supporting the public good is wrong and unhelpful.
“Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.”
That there is real scientific debate over, and dissent from the ‘official narrative’ is highlighted by this open letter to Boris Johnson et al. by a group of doctors and scientists. Instead of encouraging discussion the government and media and, yes, community activists, have insisted on suppressing, denying and deriding any questioning of the narrative that we should be so afraid of the Covid virus that we show consider it a moral duty to sell our own feedoms and steal the freedoms of others.
What is Not Known
- This is an interesting article in which its author Dr Malcolm Kendrick notes that:
“The main reason for prolonged silence, and introspection, is that I am not sure I can find the truth. I do not know if it can be found anymore. Today I am unsure what represents a fact, and what has simply been made up. A sad and scary state of affairs.”
Dr Malcolm Kendrick
Is Vaccination Making the Pandemic Worse?
- Could the vaxxed rather than the unvaxxed be driving the evolution of new variants. This possibility is examined by Dr Gerry Quinn in this article:
i. “Given the lack of proper follow-up data of vaccinated individuals, the real life picture of the epidemiology of vaccinated versus unvaccinated is incredibly muddy. This in and of itself is something of a scandal given that the vaccines use an entirely novel technology, the efficacy of which has yet to be determined.”
This is indeed a scandal. It is either grossly incompetent or it is intentional.
ii. “The vast majority of the vulnerable population have now been immunised. The proportionate risk to the rest of the UK population has always been significantly lower; in some instances as much as 1000-fold.”
Has the risk to young people really increased? Has it increased by the degree that is often claimed but rarely quantified? Or is it only the focus of those promoting vaccination that has changed?
iii.”There is also an underlying assumption in these articles that there is no immunity without vaccines. This is simply not the case … the number of naturally immune individuals will have risen through exposure to the virus over time, even in the absence of symptomatic disease.”
If this is correct then the natural immunity of the unvaxxed will have risen. According to Quinn natural immunity is superior to vaccine induced immunity and will be more effective in coping with variants. I don’t know if vaccine induced immunity interferes with the acquisition of natural immunity but if it does then over time the vaccinated will become more vulnerable than their unvaccinated peers. Could this explain the apparent waning of vaccine efficacy in Israel?
iv. “The question as to whether variants emerge more in the vaccinated or unvaccinated have been the subject of many research studies, most connected to the efficiency of the vaccination strategy. In one study in Israel, in April 2021, the Beta (SA) variant was found in eight times as many of the vaccinated as the unvaccinated. However, in a more recent study from Greece, researchers found that there was no significant difference in the number of infections of the Beta (SA) variant between vaccinated and unvaccinated in health care workers.”
Does this mean that new variants are more likely to arise in the vaccinated? Quinn writes:
v. “New variants would still have emerged without the introduction of vaccinations as they did prior to the vaccine rollout. The virus mutation rate is constant and vaccination has not altered this rate. What is less clear is whether vaccination has increased the rate at which certain variants come to predominate.”
I’m not going to comment on this or the rest of the article but what I’ve read suggests to me that, a) there is no reason to believe that the unvaccinated drive the emergence of new variants, and b) that a growing probability of superior natural immunity, plus the already thousand-fold smaller risk of young people being seriously harmed by covid, plus whatever risk there is of adverse vaccine reactions, are all arguments against young people being vaccinated. These arguments may need to be weighed against arguments for having being vaccinated – and the weight will be different for different health profiles and age groups. But at present there is no justification for a gung-ho recommendation that everyone takes the vaccine and certainly no justification for measures that coerce everyone into being vaccinated.
- The headline reads:
“Breakthrough COVID infections show ‘the unvaccinated are now putting the vaccinated at risk’”
This assertion is used by those calling for mandatory vaccination and this article argues for the assertion. I’ve read the article very carefully and have made notes. I think I’ve refuted the proposition. Am I correct?
“… health experts say that rare “breakthrough infections” among vaccinated people are not a sign that vaccines are failing. Instead, they are a warning of how vaccine holdouts can endanger even their inoculated neighbors.”
Granted that statistics I’ve seen suggest that the unvaccinated are 20 times as likely to be hospitalised as the vaccinated in the US (and 3 times as likely in the UK but no more likely in Israel), there is, afaik, no evidence that vaccinated people are more or less likely to be infected or that if infected that they carry any reduced viral load. In fact Fauci confirms that the viral load is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated people and uses this as an argument for vaccinated people to continue using masks.
If infected people carry the same viral load whether they are vaccinated or not and symptoms are much milder in the vaccinated then it is follows that fewer vaccinated people will be obviously sick and more of them will be walking around and able to infect others. By this logic (tell me if I’m mistaken) the vaccinated are much more of a danger to the unvaccinated than the other way around.
“Mounting research suggests the variants are placing greater strain on the vaccines. When people are infected with the delta variant, Huffman said they produce a thousand times greater viral load than seen from the original COVID-19 strain. That means the delta variant is more efficient at spreading and every time an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks, they potentially release much more of the virus — and opportunities to get someone else sick — than earlier in the pandemic.”
Why would the delta variant result in a viral load 1000 times greater than the original variant? The only explanation that comes to mind (feel free to give others) is that it takes a much bigger load of delta to knock out the host. This must be because the virus is weaker or the host is stronger or both of these things are true.
If the infected vaccinated and the infected unvaccinated carry the same viral load but the unvaccinated are much more likely to become symptomatic it follows that the vaccinated have developed a greater tolerance to the virus. The vaccinated are not killing the virus or being killed by it, their immune systems must have stopped fighting and are allowing the the virus to multiply. This is consistent with what I have said previously.
“With only about half of the nation’s population — 163.3 million people — fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, the vaccine’s advantages begin to erode, said Weissman, a physician and infectious disease expert at the University of Pennsylvania.”
Is this true? What’advantages’ are eroded?
We are told that “The unvaccinated are now putting the vaccinated at risk.” but how?
“When scientists developed vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, their vaccine candidates were judged effective based on whether or not people were hospitalized or died after getting immunized.
Even with delta, almost everyone who dies from COVID-19 — 99.5 percent of known cases — are unvaccinated people, along with 97 percent of people hospitalized for the illness. That suggests that the vaccines are still highly effective, said U.S. Surgeon General and Dr. Vivek Murthy during a recent press briefing.
The CDC is counting vaccinated people who have been hospitalized or died from the coronavirus. Based on data available so far, that very rarely happens.”
How is it possible to hold that the overwhelming number of deaths are among the unvaccinated, that it is very rare for the vaccinated to be hospitalised and at the same time to hold that it is the vaccinated who are being put at risk?
“in the U.S., no one knows exactly how many breakthrough cases there really are because nationwide data doesn’t exist. The agency does not count vaccinated people who have been diagnosed with the disease but are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms, said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health.”
Why would any agency that was interested in the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing transmission no count the incidence of infection among vaccinated people?
“The risk of a breakthrough infection for vaccinated people with symptoms upon exposure to the delta variant is reduced by seven-fold and that reduction is 20-fold for hospitalizations and death, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who directs the CDC, said Tuesday.”
This is a very badly phrased sentence but it merely repeats the assertion that vaccinated people are less likely to become symptomatic.
“However, the CDC does track cohorts of fully vaccinated essential workers, including those in the health care and long-term care industries, to better understand how protective vaccines are. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House’s chief medical advisor, told PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff on Tuesday that, from those cohorts, they are seeing data showing that fully vaccinated people who get infected “clearly can transmit it to other people.””
So how it this consistent with the headline argument that:
“… health experts say that rare “breakthrough infections” among vaccinated people are not a sign that vaccines are failing. Instead, they are a warning of how vaccine holdouts can endanger even their inoculated neighbors.”?
At this point I stop reading carefully. I’ve done enough and I lose interest. The vaccinated can be crawling with the bugs and still appear well. Okay. Your choice how you manage your immune system but don’t say that the unvaccinated are putting the vaccinated at risk when all the evidence you’ve cited, your own arguments, contradict that conclusion.
10. So, let’s see if I have this right. We were told that your vaccines are over 90% successful in preventing serious cases of Covid-19. So successful that governments across the world are practically forcing their people to take them. Now your saying that you’re working on anti-viral medication to be used in the early stages of infection. But when doctors talked about using an antiviral medication called Ivermectin they were effectively silenced. Will your medication be more effective that Ivermectin? Will trials now be done on Ivermectin and your medication?
- By now everyone who is in the slightest politically aware must know that there is widespread suppression on social media and in mainstream media of arguments that contradict the establishment narrative. If we know the information on which our assumptions are based is being controlled and restricted by others then we need to question both our assumptions and the process, programming, planning, propagandising and policies that feed those assumptions.
- I posted a video of Fuellmich a little while ago. This article by Robert Turner claims to refute his claims. Read it and assess its quality yourselves. You might find it convincing. I don’t and here is the analysis you never asked for 🙂
Turner points out and Fuellmich admits that he (Fuellmich) has no medical or scientific qualifications. He, like the rest of us, is qualified to listen to those who do have such qualifications and he is qualified to assess what is presented as facts and evidence by those who accept a particular narrative and those who reject it.
There is no real ‘dissection’ of Fuellmich’s claims in Robert Turner’s article.
Let’s look at the substance of Turner’s objections:
There’s a whole lot going on here. Fuellmich isn’t a doctor or virologist or epidemiologist and it shows. The first and most obvious flaw in his statement above is this. You can spread the virus till the cows come home simply by having it in your nostrils. You don’t, Mr. Fuellmich, require active replication in your cells to be a vector for spreading a virus.<<
First this objection makes little sense. How does having some possibly inert genetic material in your nostrils make you a spreader? How does having it on your fingers or in the air or on a piece of fruit differ from merely having it in your nostrils? What is the mechanism whereby it spreads? I don’t know but I do know that it is correct that the notion of asymptomatic spread is a new one. In the comments I’ve uploaded a video of Dr Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO speaking in June 2020. She gives a detailed explanation of why asymptomatic transmission is rare and not a driver of the pandemic. Van Kerkhove later walked back on this to say that asymptomatic transmission was a driver but without giving a similarly detailed rationale to support this. Much like Fauci’s change of direction on the efficacy of masks.
Whether the matter detected by the PCR tests is either alive or dead has no relevance to the test’s ability to detect the material in the first place. In fact, this statement would seem counterintuitive on his behalf. If he’s suggesting the tests don’t work, why is he then complaining about the condition of the material they identify? You cant have it both ways Mr. Fuellmich.
Fuelmich is not saying that they tests do not work. He is saying that the tests detect genetic material through a process of increasing amplification and that beyond a certain level of amplification it is unreliable because it identifies material that is sufficiently like the virus to be falsely identified as such. He is also saying that at levels of amplification at which genetic material from the virus is correctly identified the test cannot determine whether the material is alive or dead. These statements may or may not be true but they are not contradictory.
Mike Yeadon is exactly the sort of person you’d be expecting Fuellmich to quote and his representation of Yeadon is horribly misleading. Yeadon did work for Pfizer. He was vice president and chief scientific officer for Pfizer’s United Kingdom-based allergy and respiratory unit until that unit shut down in 2011, not Pfizer’s actual VP as Fuellmich insinuates.<<
This is called splitting hairs.
PCR tests are simply an aid to doctors, enabling them to confirm or dismiss a possible diagnosis in conjunction with visible symptoms and other factors. In other words, as all doctors are aware, you treat the patient, not the test. Fuellmich obviously isn’t aware of this annoying medical habit of clinicians using diagnostic tools to assist them in confirming a diagnosis, leading him to claim rather brashly that the court decision in Vienna is a game-changer.
Sorry, Reiner, that’s a silly own goal and not your first.
This is a silly objection. Doctors are aware that you treat patients with visible symptoms, that you don’t treat the test. But the test is being used, not as a basis for treating individuals but as a basis for assessing the extent of the pandemic and for determining the appropriate responses. It is reasonable to suggest that an inappropriately used test may lead to inappropriate responses.
Outside of these points Turner’s article is merely a nasty attack on Fuellmach painting him as a ‘con man’ without any evidence for that assessment. Turner rejects Fuellmich’s conjecture that the (at least arguably) inappropriate, excessive and contradictory measures taken by governments are a result of a powerful conspiracy. I cannot say if this conjecture is correct (perhaps another post) but there are agendas such as the Great Reset, the profit motives of the Pharmaceutical industry and the sheer greed of chumocracies in government (Matt Hancock?) that suggest that decisions ostensibly ‘following the science’ may be following such other agendas.
- Doctors have been fired for dissenting from the official narrative about covid and the vaccines.
- “In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020. We do not question the role of all public health interventions, or of coordinated communications about the epidemic, but we fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures. The data cannot fully exclude the possibility of some benefits. However, even if they exist, these benefits may not match the numerous harms of these aggressive measures. More targeted public health interventions that more effectively reduce transmissions may be important for future epidemic control without the harms of highly restrictive measures.”
The necessity and efficacy of lockdowns are assumed rather than proved.
- Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.
I hope at least some people appreciate the significance of this admission reported in the Telegraph:
“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was “unethical” and “totalitarian”.
Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s Covid-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase “the perceived level of personal threat” from Covid-19 because “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”.
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: “Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.”
Mr Morgan spoke to author Laura Dodsworth, who has spent a year investigating the Government’s tactics for her book A State of Fear, published on Monday.
Ministers have faced repeated accusations that they ramped up the threat from the pandemic to justify lockdowns and coerce the public into abiding by them – a claim that will be examined by the forthcoming public inquiry into the pandemic response.
SPI-B is one of the sub-committees that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser.
One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: “In March  the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
“The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Another SPI-B member said: “You could call psychology ‘mind control’. That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
One warned that “people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise… We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in”.
Another said: “Without a vaccine, psychology is your main weapon… Psychology has had a really good epidemic, actually.”
As well as overt warnings about the danger of the virus, the Government has been accused of feeding the public a non-stop diet of bad news, such as deaths and hospitalisations, without ever putting the figures in context with news of how many people have recovered, or whether daily death tolls are above or below seasonal averages.
Another member of SPI-B said they were “stunned by the weaponisation of behavioural psychology” during the pandemic, and that “psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them”.
Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: “If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become.
“If we’re being really honest, do I fear that Government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.”