Publications Visitor Contributions

Looking into their eyes: a cross section of some people opposed to the official COVID narrative – zenodo

Most believed that COVID was a real illness, with a defined risk profile. Most were not opposed to vaccination as medical practice in itself, but did express doubts about the rapid development, deployment and side effect profiles of the current COVID vaccines. Many participants were not personally affected by the lockdown measures, but some recounted ostracism from activities due to their choices around masking and vaccination.

The main challenge for most was managing relationships with others that had a differing view of the situation, e.g. friends and family. As a result of the past two years, participants reported increased scepticism and a greater suspicion towards the state, medical profession and vaccination as a medical practice. Some reported increased mistrust in other members of the public, borne out of a sense of disbelief at the ease with which they viewed most people as acquiescing to a state of affairs that participants regarded as highly abnormal.

Visitor Contributions

Canada’s Covid-19 Resistance – What Dr. Hinshaw’s Affidavit foretells

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


William Walter Kay BA JD

  • Credentials: BA JD

Canada’s Covid-19 Resistance – What Dr. Hinshaw’s Affidavit foretells

A foundational myth of Canada’s Covid protest movement has it that at some climatic point in this horror-show the judiciary will rush in to vanquish our medical tormentors. A recent ruling by Justice Kirker of Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench pours pails of ice-water onto this fever-born fantasy.

On December 7 the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) et al filed an Originating Application in pursuit of declarations vitiating Alberta’s Covid-related Public Health Orders on the grounds that these Orders violate Charter-protected rights and freedoms.

Acknowledging that this proceeding will take time to adjudicate, JCCF filed a Notice of Application, on December 10, seeking immediate suspension of the impugned Health Orders pending the outcome of the overall case. The hearing on this interim relief, pitched as a bid to “Save Christmas,” was held via video on December 21.

JCCF’s team submitted an impressive portfolio of affidavits, memoranda and precedents. Counsel for the Alberta Government responded with a 7-page Affidavit signed by their Chief Medical Officer of Heath, the catatonic Dr. Deena Hinshaw. After a snap hearing Judge Kirker dispatched JCCF’s lawyers with shoeprints on their trouser bottoms.

Hinshaw’s Affidavit might have been cobbled together in an afternoon of copying and pasting from the Health Ministry’s website. Supporting documentation consists of 5 simple graphs.

Interestingly, as far as hospitalizations go, Hinshaw’s Affidavit presents a rather flaccid argument for a lockdown. She claims Alberta’s 2018-2019 flu season wrought 2,310 hospitalization stays including 341 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. In 2019-20 there were 2,339 flu hospitalizations including 262 ICU admissions. Covid-19, from March 5 to December 16 2020, (a period longer than a flu season) generated 2,862 hospitalizations and 506 ICU admissions. This hardly warrants martial law.

The death count, however, tells another tale. Hinshaw claims Covid has already killed 790 Albertans while the seasonal flu killed only 659 Albertans in the past 10 years combined. This eye-popping stat no doubt arises from treating a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 as grounds for deeming Covid-19 to be the primary cause of death for any subsequent fatality, regardless of co-morbidities.

The gaping lacunae in Hinshaw’s Affidavit is the provincial aggregate death tally. If there were excess deaths in 2020 Hinshaw would have brandished this. Lack of discussion on this subject beckons a negative inference.

JCCF will surely grind out a truer depiction of the body count; but they labour in vain. A date hasn’t even been set for hearing the originating application; and its outcome is predictable.

According to Canada’s Constitution a government may limit any right or freedom provided it does so in a lawful manner consistent with democratic principles. Apparently, a Health Ministry press release suffices to discharge such obligations.

An appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (should they deign to hear it) will take years. By then Covid will linger only in the glittering treasures of Big Pharma shareholders.

Wherefrom the notion that judges would ride to our rescue? All senior judicial appointments in Canada are agonizingly scrutinised by partisan wonks deep within the Federal Government. They’re not seeking outside-the-box thinkers.

Moreover, Covid proceedings will entirely turn on the testimony of epidemiologists and virologists drawn from the Borg-like international medical-industrial complex. Legal authorities will side with medical authorities.

Resistance to the Covid reign of terror needs to explore additional pathways.     

Visitor Contributions

A Rational Reopening Guide

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Megan Mansell

  • Credentials: Megan Mansell is a former district education director over special populations integration, serving students who are profoundly disabled, immunocompromised, undocumented, autistic, and behaviorally challenged; she also has a background in hazardous environs PPE applications. She is experienced in writing and monitoring protocol implementation for immunocompromised public sector access under full ADA/OSHA/IDEA compliance.
  • E-mail: [email protected]
  • Twitter: @mamasaurusMeg

A Rational Reopening Guide

A framework for operating any facility or business during COVID

The United States already has a body of law that requires making accommodations for persons with disabilities; if we start from the premise that Americans should be able to determine the level of risk they’re willing to take, all of those concepts can be extended to provide accommodations to anyone who is concerned about exposure to COVID, whether because they are vulnerable or because they live with someone who is vulnerable.

The first step is to ask everyone whether or not they consider themselves immunocompromised (IC). This can include people who themselves are immunocompromised or who live with someone who is immunocompromised. Allowing people to identify whether or not they consider themselves immunocompromised allows us to create reasonable accommodations for accessing the public sector. Some people cannot mask, and others prefer not to, but we can still allow them to safely access shared spaces if we know how many individuals are truly in need of accommodation.

Those who cannot or prefer not to mask should be free to assess their own risk, especially for a contagion with a 99.6% recovery rate.

If we ask everyone to identify the population they belong to, it all falls into place.

Read the full article on Rational Ground.

Visitor Contributions

The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


George Michael

  • Credentials: Physics graduate, University College London (UCL); Senior Research Analyst
  • Contact: LinkedIn

The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the world at a horrific scale, and people are trying to form their own opinions — rightly so — on topics ranging from disease severity to government policy. However, the general public are not exposed to a consistent flow of reliable information, so many are suffering from fear, confusion, and isolation, exacerbated by extreme differences in opinion on how seriously any aspect of the pandemic should be taken. These are the problems that this report aims to address.

Read the full article on Medium: The SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Visitor Contributions

Greenbandredband – an explanation

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Steve Sieff

Greenbandredband – an explanation


In all the controversy over what the science tells us about Coronavirus, two things have remained relatively clear throughout.

1. The virus is dangerous to a very small minority of the population who can be relatively easily identified by reference to age and certain underlying conditions. The majority of the population display at worst mild symptoms and frequently no symptoms at all.

2. The virus is capable of spreading very fast, quite possibly transmitted by asymptomatic carriers in addition to symptomatic people.

Taking both of these together, it follows that if the identifiably vulnerable people can be shielded from infection, then the speed of the virus spread would enable the rest of the population to become infected and potentially immune relatively quickly. Even if immunity turns out to be temporary opening up the possibility of repeated infection, the low severity of the infection for most people means that repeated infections would be perfectly tolerable. The healthy could then carry on working in order to protect the vulnerable while scientists and medics worked to find a way of combatting the worst effects of the virus. In other words, the two key characteristics of the virus could be exploited to minimise the disruption and harm it causes.


Unfortunately, from an early stage, world governments seemingly assumed that we were unable to protect the vulnerable, and hence focused almost exclusively on the much more difficult strategy of preventing the virus from spreading. Instead of using the virus’ key characteristics against it, we chose to try and combat one of its strongest features.

This approach became known as ‘suppression’. It led us to social distancing, lockdown and face coverings. In short it required us to halt or severely restrict person to person interaction because these interactions are what the virus thrives on. Unfortunately they are also what people thrive on, so a suppression approach comes with a heavy cost to both physical and mental health. Had this been short term pain for long term gain then perhaps it would have been a tolerable sacrifice. But in fact a suppression approach potentially continues until the virus has completely vanished or been contained, so it seems to only offer long term pain and fear of infection for everyone, with a widely distributed vaccine as the only escape.

That is where we now find ourselves. Risk is assessed on the basis only of case numbers, which are taken from testing. The focus on impact – espoused by hospitalisations and deaths – has given way to a focus purely on prevalence, without any further consideration of whether that prevalence is leading to harm.


It has been heartening to see a gradual increase in the numbers of people prepared to question the suppression approach. But there are still very few proposals for how to change things. Herd immunity is often put forward as the answer, but it is clear that uncontrolled spread is very unlikely to be accepted by authorities or by a large proportion of the population because of the potential harm to those who are vulnerable. Without a realistic proposal to replace suppression – one that addresses the concerns of those who currently support that approach – protesting and campaigns to change our course will not succeed. To convince those responsible for making decisions, and those who support them, a realistic and balanced alternative is needed. That alternative may not be exactly what anyone wants, but the status quo is unsatisfactory for one reason or another for many people, so if an alternative proposal can tick enough boxes for people on both ends of the spectrum then it can quickly gain consensus.


For many people, probably including the majority who will read this, the ideal solution would be to treat Coronavirus much as we treat seasonal flu. Based on infection fatality rates and excess death forecasts, there are many who would see this as a perfectly proportional way to proceed. But by now it is surely obvious to all of us that the months of fear and panic will not be easily reversed. There are too many people who are afraid of this virus and have been conditioned to treat it as a unique risk with its own set of rules. Its impact on our daily lives has become so pervasive and all encompassing that it is simply unrealistic to expect a sudden return to what we want to consider ‘normal’. We will not be able to flick the switch and return to February 2020 when distancing/masks/restrictions on gatherings/forced closure of businesses would have been viewed as totalitarian and impossible to imagine in our country.

Does that mean we must accept a ‘new normal’ where all of us must curb our interactions in an ongoing fight against the spread of the virus? The answer is no. We can’t return to the way things used to be with a click of our fingers, but we can start the process of getting back there now, and the changes we can make immediately will radically improve on the status quo.


The first step towards normality is accepting that there are now many people who are petrified of being infected with Coronavirus. That might be for legitimate reasons or it might be because they have been befuddled by the media/government. Either way, we all have to be realistic and recognise that we are too far down the line to expect an immediate return to rationality. We have to ease back towards proportionality and sense. So going forward – at least for the short term – we need a system which allows freedom of choice without making people feel like those choosing freedom are being irresponsible or heartless. To succeed, that system has to be simple, cheap and capable of immediate implementation with immediate results.


Put simply, Greenbandredband is a proposal to get us out of the mess we are in now. It returns to the fundamental features of the virus and recognises that for great swathes of society, the risks associated with infection are extremely low. At the same time, we would not want to expose those who are vulnerable, nor would we want to force them to remain locked away in isolation while they wait for a vaccine.

The full details of how the system works can be found at In essence it is targeted distancing. So the less vulnerable are free to mix unrestricted, but they will maintain ‘social distance’ from those who feel that is required. Each individual is free to assess their own position and to choose accordingly. No-one is forced to take any position. If an individual is high risk but wants to take that risk then that is their choice. Similarly, if someone who is low risk feels more vulnerable than they actually are, then they can keep the protection of social distancing for themselves.


In order for people to be able to know when they are required to maintain a respectful distance and when they can interact normally some method of quick and clear communication is required. So the site recommends that people indicate which group they are choosing by displaying something which quickly gives a visual signal to everyone else. The logos on the site are free to use and can be adapted to be printed on clothing/stickers/bands so that each person’s preference is obvious to others. Of course where someone is able to communicate orally a visual marker may not be required. Provided communication is done clearly, it doesn’t matter how it takes place.


The FAQ answer many of the important questions people have asked, and I am happy to address any others. Although there is a brief discussion of some of the key scientific questions, that is not the focus of the site. The system does not depend on herd immunity or islands of isolated elderly and it is not an attempt to prove anyone right or wrong. There are many other sources of information which people can use to assess their individual risk/approach. Greenbandredband is a practical way for everyone to get closer to what they want, regardless of how they interpret ‘the science’.


I anticipate that readers of this will largely fall into the greenband group and that they will have two principal objections to the greenbandredband approach. Firstly that it normalises/accepts social distancing and secondly that it could lead to a deeply divided society. Both of these are legitimate concerns and to some extent I share them. Greenbandredband would not be my ideal society. I have no desire to see people walking around needing to display any type of affiliation to any group. And I would much rather see a proportional and measured attitude to risk rather than disproportionate and confused restrictions. Overall it is a step backwards for the society that I knew in February. But times have changed. As a step towards freedom and proportionality it would be a huge improvement on where we are now, so I reluctantly wear my green band or display the green logo every day, and I wait for a time when it won’t be required.

I can be contacted through the website

Visitor Contributions

Four scientific evidences of the null effect of massive confinement during covid 19 in Spain

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Alfonso Longo

Four scientific evidences of the null effect of massive confinement during covid 19 in Spain

It is obvious that the official hypothesis of the non lockdown deaths in Spain is dismantled by the real result in Sweden. The huge difference between 10,000 and 450 in Sweden could not be explained, either very remotely, by geographical, demographic or sociological factors that differentiate Sweden from Spain. If That is the case, Sweden would naturally be an anti-covid society. A scientifically unsustainable fantasy.

No medical treatment would be approved without using control groups in the experiments, however mass confinement is accepted without this condition, knowing that Sweden serves perfectly as an experimental control group.

Download the document here.

(Note that the document is hosted on Google Drive.)

Visitor Contributions

Covid 19 X-Factor in Spain – Nursing Homes: UNDERSTANDING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Alfonso Longo

Covid 19 X-Factor in Spain – Nursing Homes: UNDERSTANDING WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


The nursing homes, their structure and management, explain the impact of the covid-19 pandemic in Spain.

DIRECTLY: because of the weight of its mortality

CAUSALLY: because of its effect on the transmission of the virus to the rest of the population

Therefore, in order to minimize the impact of covid on society, its impact on nursing homes must first be minimized.

Download the document here.

(Note that the document is hosted on Google Drive.)

Visitor Contributions

A Comprehensive Analysis of the Covid Crisis – Joyti Valérian Goel

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Joyti Valérian Goel

Bio: I am of Service to Others, I want to contribute towards the paradigm shift, help people understand what is at stake, to help them make wise decisions, find their paths and progress as human beings.

This document synthesizes practically all aspects of the crisis and that it is to be fully understood once you read it from A to Z because everything is interconnected.

Everybody is entitled to their perspective and has the right to disagree with anything stated in this document. However, I urge you to read the document from A to Z with an open mind before making any decision. I have laid out useful insights and raised pertinent questions in order to appeal to your intellect and instigate enough curiosity so that you can also start researching yourself what is truly going on.

Some of the pertinent question:
• Does the virus exist and if it does, where does it come from?
• Why do so many positive patients suffer from minor or no symptoms?
• What test do they use?
• How do they report a death or a case?
• Why was Italy hit so badly?
• Will things ever go back to normal?
• Are there any links between 5G and the virus?
• What is this pandemic accomplishing?
• Who is benefiting from it?
• What are they hiding from us?
• What can we do?

Download the full paper:

Visitor Contributions



Bio: @4FreedomsSake is a grassroots activism group, based in Manchester, UK. We campaign against medical & government tyranny, lockdown & a police state.

It is imperative we reach a critical mass of awareness regarding the truth about the real risks of Covid19 and costs of lockdown to prevent the establishment removing more of our rights and freedoms under the pretext of health and safety concerns.

The mainstream media, particularly television news, has essentially become a state propaganda machine on this issue. Therefore it is up to individuals to get the truth out. Flyering and stickering are easy and anonymous ways to spread the message.

Manchester anti-lockdown campaign group @4freedomssake have done the work of putting the key messages together. All you need is a printer (or family member or friend with printer access) and a hour or so to get out into your local community and spread the word. 


In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.

Visitor Contributions

An Interactive Anti-Coronavirus Toolkit – Dr. Kevin P. Corbett

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.

Dr. Kevin P. Corbett

An Interactive Anti-Coronavirus Toolkit


He had moved from thought to words, and now from words to actions.”

George Orwell, 1984

In this toolkit I draw on the predictive power of fiction together with various medical and other sources to both describe and illustrate how the Hysteria over the ‘novel Coronavirus’ is leading towards a form of physical and cultural death.

This Hysteria has bred mass delusion biasing medical diagnosis to more fully bolster and grossly inflate the evidence for the spurious disease category of ‘Covid-19’. This occurs through the medical generation of illness and death, caused by faulty clinical reasoning during medical examination and treatment [‘iatrogenesis’]. This process of iatrogenesis is assisted also by powerful social forces like Terror and Fear [‘sociogenesis’] .

All of these medical and social forces are being marshalled and fuelled in Great Britain and overseas by the confluence of Hysteria from the respective elected Governments, The World Health Organisation, the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) and other non-elected supranational agencies, which are all now fatally impacting on our national psyches and policy makers.

These unelected agencies include, the 24-7 cycling Mainstream Media (MSM), The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (who fund Imperial College London a British source of Lockdown modelling), Gilead, and other pharmaceutical interests.

All of the above respective commercial and academic interests stand to gain financially from any subsequent mandatory mass screening, testing, treatment and travel certification (‘passporting’).

The investigative journalists are right on it. Celia Farber cites the above confluence of vested interests, the “Gates-led Pandemic Reich”. Jon Rappoport calls them the “..actual conspiracy theorists—Gates, WHO, CDC—who invented the conspiracy..” ‘Covid-19’ and the government Lockdowns.

Read the full monograph. (Opens PDF from external site.)

Visitor Contributions

Covid-19 and flu vaccination: is there a link? – Niall McCrae & David Kurten

In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Dr Niall McCrae

Bio: Niall McCrae is a senior lecturer in mental health. His research interests are dementia, depression and the impact of social media on younger people’s mental health. He has written three books: ‘The Moon and Madness’ (2011), ‘Echoes from the Corridors’ (with Peter Nolan, 2016) and the forthcoming ‘Moralitis: a Cultural Virus’ (with Robert Oulds, 2020). 

David Kurten AM

Bio: David Kurten is a London Assembly Member. He was elected in 2016 and sits on the Transport, Education, Housing, Fire and Environment committees at London City Hall. Before entering politics he was a Chemistry teacher and taught in schools in the UK, the USA, Botswana, Bermuda and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Covid-19 and flu vaccination: is there a link?

Niall McCrae & David Kurten

Could the flu vaccine be a factor in deaths from the coronavirus pandemic? Mortality varies widely between countries, some having rates less than ten per million, while western Europe and the USA are in the hundreds. And there is at least a correlation with the extent of flu vaccination in the elderly. The medical establishment tends to cast anyone who doubts the merits of vaccination as an extremist, but we present our case tentatively, and leave it to readers to decide whether this is a reasonable line of enquiry.

Influenza is a contagion that strikes every winter, with symptoms of headache, fever, chill, sore throat, muscle aches, fatigue, blocked nose and cough. Severe cases lead to pneumonia, a common cause of death in the elderly. The first vaccine against influenza was produced by Ernest Williams Goodpasture at Vanderbilt University in 1931, and vaccination became widely available after the Second World War.

Flu vaccination had its first major contest with the Asian flu pandemic of 1957-1958, which killed two million worldwide. Although the vaccine failed to protect, the high mortality was attributed to insufficient coverage: the pharmaceutical industry thus turned defeat into victory. In 1960 routine flu vaccination was recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control. Each pandemic has been exploited by the pro-vaccine lobby, and as sceptic Richard Moskowitz noted, the CDC became a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

A challenge for flu vaccine producers is the genetic volatility of the virus, which mutates rapidly. A new vaccine is needed every autumn, based on guessing which strains will emerge. These are experimental medicinal products, administered to a multitude. No more than four strains of influenza can be targeted effectively, and according to expert Jon Cohen a universal flu vaccine is no more than an ‘alchemists’ dream’.

In practice, the preventive performance of the flu jab is poor, partly due to a mismatch with the virulent strains. In 2014 the Cochrane Collaboration, an international body for evidence-based medicine, published a review comprising 25 studies with 59566 participants, revealing that flu vaccines reduced the incidence of influenza by a mere 6%. Most trials were not placebo-controlled. Tom Jefferson, one of the authors, described evidence for the efficacy of the flu vaccine as ‘rubbish’.

Nonetheless, with heavy marketing and medical hubris, uptake of the flu jab increased, particularly in the vulnerable elderly population. In 2009, health ministers across the EU agreed to a target of vaccinating 75% of older people against influenza. However, ten years later, no country had achieved this, the average being 44.3%.

Covid-19 is a coronavirus, thus not covered by flu vaccines. However, many of the risk factors for Covid-19 are the same to those stated as reasons for people to take an annual flu jab. Old age is the clearest risk factor in this pandemic, with the average age of those dying with the disease around 80. Other important factors for both flu and Covid-19 are obesity and chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus and respiratory disease. In addition, for Covid-19 there is marked sex disparity, with men accounting for over 60% of deaths.

Compare flu vaccine frequency in older people with Covid-19 mortality by 8th May (figures from the EUand Worldometer respectively): –

CountryFlu vaccination, age 65+ (%)Covid-19 mortality (per million)
United Kingdom72.6460
*7th May

Among countries omitted in the EU vaccination data is Belgium, which has the highest Covid-19 mortality rate in the world, at 735 per million. While specific data for older people are not readily available on the official Belgian statistics website, national population coverage indicates a relatively high flu vaccination rate in the elderly. A clear difference can be seen between east and west Europe, both in vaccine uptake and Covid-19 deaths, which may be merely coincidental.

Globally the highest uptake of the flu vaccine by seniors in 2018-2019 was in South Korea, at 83%. Third (after the UK) was the USA with 68%, and fourth was New Zealand with 67%. Neither New Zealand nor South Korea fit our hypothesis, each country having a mortality of merely 4 and 5 per million respectively. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea appear to have managed Covid-19 extremely well, despite their large populations and proximity to the source in China. Their use of tracking and tracing is impressive, and may be facilitated by cultural differences as well as technological advancement.

New Zealand’s low mortality is explained by its geographical isolation and rapid barring of entry to foreigners. Generally, the southern hemisphere has not suffered so much from Covid-19. Iceland was able to achieve similar containment. However, it appears that in continental Europe, as in North America, the virus quickly became endemic. Lockdown was like shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.

Despite some contrary cases, it is interesting that the countries with highest death rates are Belgium, Spain, Italy, the UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and the USA, all having vaccinated at least half of their elderly population against flu. Denmark and Germany, with lower use of the flu vaccine, have considerably lower Covid-19 mortality. These patterns override interventions to curtail Covid-19: Sweden and Ireland have similar mortality but the former remained open for business while the other imposed strict lockdown.

Of course, correlation is not causation, and the disproportionately high Covid-19 death tolls could be explained by other factors. Western European countries and the USA have urban areas of very high population density and multicultural demography, with busy hubs of international transit. Reporting practices vary considerably between countries. However, causation of Covid-19 mortality is likely to be multifactorial, and the flu vaccine should be considered in broader post-mortem investigation of this pandemic.

Recent developments in flu vaccines may be relevant. Last autumn, the UK was the first country in Europe to introduce Flucelvax Tetra, which was touted as 36% more effective. Flu vaccines have always been produced in hens’ eggs, which are a good incubator for the virus. For the UK alone, around 50 million eggs are needed for the annual vaccine supply. The new vaccine is created in vats of cells from dogs’ kidneys. These cells are more similar to ours than those of chickens.

Vaccines have been known to give room for new resistant strains of viruses to develop, through natural selection. As reported in BMC Medicine by Alehouse and Scarpino, whooping cough outbreaks have infected vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people. As warned by critics, mandating of the chickenpox vaccine in the USA appears to have weakened the immunity gained from the naturally-acquired disease; a review by Goldman and King in Vaccine journal showed an increased incidence of shingles. Studies (e.g. Skowronski et al, 2010) indicated that people receiving the flu vaccine in one year were more likely to contract the H1N1 strain in the following year.

Vaccination against the human papilloma virus (HPV) is restricted to the two strains most linked to cervical cancer, which is likely to lead to other strains becoming prominent. In 2018 leading medical scientist Peter Gøtzsche was expelled from the Cochrane Collaboration, which he co-founded in 1993. Allegedly, he brought the organisation into disrepute after he exposed bias in a review of the HPV vaccine, which understated adverse effects.

Gøtzsche was accused of endangering millions of women by deterring vaccine uptake. In a similarly denouncing tone, British health secretary Matt Hancock stated: –

Those who campaign against vaccination are campaigning against science. The science is settled…Those who have promoted the anti-vaccination myth are morally reprehensible, deeply irresponsible and have blood on their hands.

These words do not represent a scientific attitude at all. Science is rarely ‘settled’ (a weaponising of language borrowed from climate change alarmists), certainly not in an area as complex as immunology. Just as we should be wary of anti-vaccine fundamentalists, Gøtzsche urged a critical attitude to official guidelines.

There are good reasons why people can become sceptical towards vaccines in general, or at least ask questions about them. The business practice of drug companies involves organised crime where cheating with the clinical trials and in marketing is common and has led to thousands of deaths. It is also clear that we cannot trust our drug regulators, which allow far too many dangerous drugs on to the market and are very slow to take them off again when the evidence for their lethal effects accumulates.

It has been hypothesised that vaccines may also increase susceptibility to other pathology, although this is highly contentious. Andrew Wakefield acted unethically with his research on the MMR vaccine and its putative link to inflammatory bowel disease and autism, but we should not dismiss concerns because one researcher was discredited. With the global focus on Covid-19 and the attempt to understand why some groups and nations are seemingly more susceptible to it, it is valid to ask: could the flu vaccine, while preventing certain strains of influenza, have reduced immunity to Covid-19?

Suppression of publication of research findings that contradict the accepted truth is a phenomenon well-known in climate science literature, and also in medicine, which is heavily influenced by commercial interests. And ‘the science’ is hardly robust when you consider the modelling by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, which predicted, for example, that Sweden would have over 40 thousand deaths by the beginning of May, if it continued to refrain from a lockdown: the actual figure was fewer than three thousand.

We write not as vaccine experts but as a former chemistry teacher and a mental health lecturer. The true scientific attitude is scepticism, and that is how the orthodoxy and its assumptions are challenged. Co-author NM recently had publication of a commentary on Covid-19 refused because it didn’t concord with WHO guidelines, yet the WHO is hardly a pillar of truth, having failed to warn the world of the severity of Covid-19 in concert with the Chinese Communist Party. We should not allow institutions to thwart the search for truth or censor valid questions, however financially or politically powerful they may be.

Publications Visitor Contributions


In the interest of public debate, we allow visitors to share opinions, experiences and research that may be of value to others. This is a visitor contribution from our Discussions page.

The views expressed are those of the individual posters themselves. Please read our Comments and contributions disclaimer.


Dr. Kevin P. Corbett


Monograph One. The Coronavirus Hysteria Series: ‘SARS-CoV-2’, the ‘novel Coronavirus’. A monograph by an independent research consultant on the accuracy of the RT-PCR and antibody tests.

Dr Kevin P Corbett MSc PhD


Test regulators must publish evidence for this ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-CoV-2’) showing viral purification and visualization in order to underpin the gold standard for the respective RT-PCR and antibody tests.

If the ‘novel Coronavirus’ is proven to exist, regulators must then publish evidence showing how this ‘novel Coronavirus’ fulfils Koch’s postulates before it can be assumed that it causes the ‘new’ disease recently termed ‘Covid-19’.


No Gold Standard, No Fulfilment of Koch’s Postulates

Viral purification and visualisation prior to test manufacture is the scientific approach for validating how accurately tests perform, known as the gold standard (White and Fenner 1986 p9). This must be followed by proof that any proven viral agent fulfils Koch’s postulates for causation of this ‘new’ disease called ‘Covid-19’ which is currently lacking (e.g. Zhu et al 2020). A forthcoming scientific paper on current RT-PCR/antibody tests for the ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-Cov-2’) by leading scientists in the U.S. state of Georgia states:

‘There is no gold standard for COVID-19 since this specific virus has never been properly purified and visualized. Thus, the accuracies of the tests are unknown. The development of these test kits is contrary to the FDA’s guidance document.’

Reliable analytical data is critical for the correct determination of the real presence or absence of COVID-19 infection’ (Ogenstad et al 2020 pp3-4).

The above extract, which was confirmed by the USA Georgia State authors, reveals that the way these tests perform when testing patients/staff has never been properly evaluated in relation to the gold standard of ‘purified virus’. This means that the accuracy of these tests is currently unknown and impossible to judge until more work is completed.

Britain Is Using Flawed Tests

Investigative journalists at London’s Daily Telegraph (Donnelly and Gardner 2020) report that the British test regulator – Public Health England (PHE) – is using flawed ‘novel Coronavirus’ tests (for ‘SARS-CoV-2’) with no real capacity to roll out national screening and testing (Open Democracy 2020) on thousands of UK National Health Service (NHS) patients and workers. PHE is also reportedly giving ‘discordant’ (+/-) results, running in-house testing (aka ‘home brew’), and creating differences between the PHE ‘in-house’ tests and commercially available tests (Donnelly and Gardner 2020).

The Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Test ‘ used for initial hospital screening for the disease Covid-19 (assumed to be caused by this supposed ‘novel Coronavirus’) is thought to detect what is believed to be bits of ‘RNA’ from this ‘novel Coronavirus’. Similarly, the antibody test for this ‘novel Coronavirus’ is assumed to detect viral ‘antibodies’ but in Britain it was proven to be unsuitable (Smythe et al, 2020).

Data sheets (e.g. Roche, 2020) rushed out from the test manufacturers and fast-tracked for clinical use by the US Federal Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorisation have dropped the requisite caveats that such tests MUST be confirmed by comparison with purified infectious virus – and not just from bits of RNA, the so-called ‘RNAaemia’ of Huang et al (2020 p499) assumed to come from a ‘novel Coronavirus’ based only on molecular/genetic similarity.

All of the above arguments (and more) were first advanced about the ‘isolation’ of ‘HIV’ and its role in AIDS by Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al (2012). However, these sorts of arguments were vehemently and continuously rejected by ‘mainstream’ scientists. As Ogenstad et al are ‘mainstream’ scientists; it is now interesting, one could say highly worrying, to see how these so-called ‘rejected arguments’ are now so adamantly advanced by Ogenstad et al for these RT-PCR/antibody tests. It is highly worrying because the implications and ramifications stemming from what Ogenstad et al are now admitting is that the science underpinning the Lockdown and the continued erosion of our liberties is not just questionable (as is all ‘normal science’ (Kuhn (2012)) but is wrong at worst or fatally misguided at best.

The gold standard for any ‘novel Coronavirus’ test is the best independent way to measure the test’s accuracy at truly detecting those patients with and without the virus, the positive predictive value of the tests (Griner et al 1981). Logically, as the Georgia State U.S. scientists imply, the gold standard must not be bits of RNA (‘RNAaemia’) but “purified virus” confirmed by “purification” and “visualisation” using electron microscopy (White and Fenner,1986 p9). Even then, after what Ogenstad et al (2020) term “the correct determination of the real presence or absence of COVID-19 infection” [SARS-CoV-2, ‘novel Coronavirus’] these conjectured ‘viral’ particles must be rigorously proven to cause the disease through strict criteria called Koch’s postulates (University of Maryland 2020), which have never been fulfilled for the ‘novel Coronavirus’ (Zhu et al 2020, Crowe 2020a).

This may help to explain why the PHE is now reporting ‘discordant results’ (non-binary) where some people test alternatively ‘positive’ and then ‘negative’, with or without symptoms, according to investigative journalists at London’s Daily Telegraph (Donnelly and Garner 2020). These PHE reports match other studies which show how the test is as far from binary (Li et al 2020) as a quantum, the cut-off is in reality totally arbitrary (Young et al 2020), discordant results occur continuously with the same patients (Cao et al 2020, Li et al 2020), and the quantity of RNA totally fails to correlate with illness severity (Young et al 2020).
British test guidance says the precautionary actions governing quality control of the RT-PCR should be expedited to get a definitive result (NHS England and NHS Improvement 2020 p8). This further helps to explain reports showing that people have been advised to return to work too early (false negatives), and vice-versa, people are similarly misadvised – to stay off work unnecessarily (false positives) (Donnelly and Gardner 2020).

Furthermore, the number testing RT-PCR positive (with or without antibodies) is reportedly inaccurate (Donnelly and Gardner 2020) and likely conflates false + true positives: false positives are those testing positive that never had the virus, and false negatives vice-versa. As the Georgia State US scientists openly admit: “the accuracies of the tests are unknown”. Coupled with these problems is the subjective way in which different definitions are made of how a positive test is arrived at (Bustin and Nolan 2017, Crowe 2020b). For example, in the ‘HIV/AIDS’ era this gave rise to a whole set of different generations of test methodologies engendering false and indeterminate results subsequently terrorising patients due to the uncertainty experienced (Corbett 2001, Corbett 2009). The evidence underpinning the accuracy of these ‘novel Coronavirus’ tests have been exhaustively summarised by David Crowe, an independent Canadian researcher, on the London website ‘Lockdown Sceptics’ (Crowe 2020c).

The Georgia State US scientists (Ogenstad et al 2020) show the downside of the global rush to judgement and the dangerous bypassing of the expected precautionary principle with regard to test development. It points to the regulatory veneer of scientific certainty over testing versus the actuality of scientific uncertainty. The fast-tracking of tests together with the fear induced actions of the World Health Organisation and the profit-driven pharmaceutical industry have produced a confluence of interests. This is the background for the panic-driven collusion of the official health authorities – the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and their respective British counterparts (PHE/the British National Institute for Health And Care Excellence (NICE)). Together, under emergency instructions, these forces are rolling out these tests (accuracy ‘unknown’) onto a public who unquestionably believes them to be ‘sound’ and to be ‘binary’. This is an appalling scientific disaster of enormous proportions, implications and ramifications. Ogenstad et al (2020) are clearly admitting that no purified infectious ‘novel Coronavirus’ (‘SARS-Cov-2’) has ever been adequately demonstrated as coming from patients (e.g. see Huang et al 2020). The implication is that the ‘novel Coronavirus’ RNA/antibodies whose veracity are assumed by PHE/FDA may not actually prove to be ‘viral’ but could represent other phenomena. For example some scientists like Andrew Kaufman (Kaufman, 2020) suggest these may be ‘exosomes’, whilst others point to numerous confounding process artefacts (Schierwater et al 2009), or due to the laboratory ‘quality processes’ which appear remarkably open to errors and misinterpretation (Bustin and Nolan 2017). Until the proper research is suitably undertaken (and reproduced) regulators cannot scientifically claim that the tests are accurate.

The Pathology of Lockdown ‘Science’

The ‘science’ underpinning this Lockdown is becoming more and more like the science underpinning Irving Langmuir’s concept of ‘pathological science’ (Langmuir 1953) with its ‘claims of great accuracy’, now refuted (e.g. Imperial College London’s ‘model epidemic’). For example, the fantastic over-reach theories, contrary to human knowledge/experience, of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ that certain contagion occurs through the normal quotidian of ‘touch’; ‘receiving holy communion’; ‘breathing’; ‘sitting on a park bench’; ‘attending funerals’; ‘CPR’; ‘non-invasive ventilation’; and ‘being present with hospitalised loved ones on their death beds’ etc.

This fauxdemic’s ‘high ratio of supporters to critics’ was initially rising but is now acknowledged as falling, as we see an emergent Lockdown ennui amongst politicians, scientists and the general population. All of these italicised characteristics of Langmuir’s ‘pathological science’ are now arguably fulfilled in the case of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ and ‘Covid-19’. This fauxdemic, by bizarrely turning the normal into the abnormal, is arguably looking like another instance of pathological science, such as cold fusion theory. Many scientists have tried to rein in the zealotry of Imperial College London’s epidemiology, but with little apparent success. For example, the work of Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University did not impact greatly in the media or with government even though they showed good evidence that this ‘pandemic’ is a ‘..Late seasonal effect in the Northern Hemisphere on the back of a mild ILI season.’ (‘ILI’=influenza-like illness)(Heneghan and Jefferson 2020).

Furthermore, daily snitch reports by the media show how the mystical spell cast by the pathological science can wear off, as all sections of society can wake up to the reality of what has been so zealously perpetrated in the name of ‘epidemiological science’. This is the creation in the Western world of an inhuman dystopia of prospective mandatory screening, flawed testing and fast-tracked vaccination (akin to Communist China), from which all our elected ‘Free World’ politicians have failed to protect us.

The characteristics of this emerging dystopic order form the thematic of a further monograph in this Coronavirus Hysteria series published by KPC Research and Consultancy Limited.

British Scientific Credibility Compromised

What is not publicly admitted by PHE and is implicit in the above cited reports is PHE’s failure to create testing capacity. This may be due to the rapid NHS public health changes which followed the Lansley NHS reorganisation (Health and Social Care Act 2012). It locally disaggregated services like PHE and exacerbated the existing NHS contract culture (Ham et al 2015). Those highly controversial reforms are now fatally impacting on test-kit purchasing and in-house test evaluation which is required on a UK-wide, and not a local [‘home-brew’] scale and must impact similarly across both the NHS and commercial providers.

The marshalling of testing capacity in the UK is not happening quickly enough as the necessary infrastructure has changed from the 1980s when ‘HIV’ tests were the official panic. The infrastructure developed from the 1980s onward by Phillip Mortimer, and the now extinct Public Health Laboratory Service, created a truly innovative HIV testing strategy using in-house ELISA algorithms, thus dumping the more expensive/less accurate US ones (Corbett 1998). Such British innovation was arguably largely due to Mortimer’s creative scientific leadership of the PHLS (Corbett 1998). At the time of Lansley’s NHS reorganisation, some very erudite and evidence-based warnings went almost entirely unheeded over the subsequent negative effects of the ensuing contract-culture (e.g. Pollock et al 2012).

Lack of Scientific Transparency and Public Accountability

What is very clear now is how our PHE experts seem much less transparent about these failures and the limitations of existing science, unlike their US colleagues (in the leaked report), who are basically calling for the scientific evidence for the existence of this ‘novel Coronavirus’. A lot depends on this as the lockdown continues and civil liberties are severely curtailed (Corbett and Crowe 2020). Other independent researchers have already called for this sort of evidence (Crowe 2020) but their pleas have gone unheeded, or have been dismissed by officialdom just as was the work of Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.

PHE and other national test regulators like the FDA must now urgently publish reproducible analyses on the ‘proper’ purification and visualisation of this ‘novel Coronavirus’ to underpin the proper gold standard for any associated testing.


Our respective test regulators, who in Britain are incapable of supplying the testing technology required for this government-imposed Lockdown, are practising what some call incomplete and erroneous science (OffGuardian 2020). They must be made fully accountable, and be required to address in the terms described in the opening of this monograph, this question:

Where is your evidence for the existence of the ‘novel Coronavirus’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’?


Bustin S Nolan T (2017) Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT?qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation: August 10

Cao S, Wu A, Li J et al.(2020) Recurrent recurrence of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a COVID-19 patient, April 15, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square.

Corbett K (2018) The Regulation of British HIV Testing, 1985-2003. London, KPC Research and Consultancy

Corbett, K (2001) Contesting AIDS/HIV: the lay reception of biomedical knowledge. Unpublished PhD thesis, London South Bank University.

Corbett, K (2009) ‘You’ve got it, you may have it, you haven’t got it’: multiplicity, heterogeneity, and the unintended consequences of HIV-related tests. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34 (1), pp. 102-125. ISSN 0162-2439.

Corbett K, Crowe D (2020) Problems with current UK government lockdown policy. Journal of Advanced Nursing interactive.

Crowe D (2020a) Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory.

Crowe D (2020b) The Infectious Myth – Simplifying RT-PC.R. The Infectious Myth, April 21.

Crowe D (2020c) The Incredible and Scary Truth about COVID-19 Tests. London, Lockdown Sceptics April 26

Donnelly L, Gardner B (2020) Revealed: NHS staff given flawed coronavirus tests. Leaked memo exposes farce as Covid-19 results are less reliable than first thought because of ‘degraded’ performance. April 21. London.

Griner PF, Mayewski RJ, Mushlin AI (1981) Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures. Annals of Internal Medicine 94:559-563.

Ham C, Baird C, Gregory S, Jabbal J, Alderwick H (2015) The NHS under the coalition government. London, King’s Fund.

Health and Social Care Act (2012) Health and Social Care Act. London, Her Majesty’s Government

Heneghan C, Jefferson T (2020) COVID-19 deaths compared with ‘Swine Flu’. Oxford University and The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine develops, promotes and disseminates better evidence for healthcare. April 9,

Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24.

Kaufman A (2020) Dr. Andrew Kaufman: Is COVID-19 an Exosome?

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th anniversary. Ian Hacking (intro.) (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Langmuir I (1953) Pathological Science. Colloquium at The Knolls Research Laboratory Niskayuna, New York City, New York, December 18, 1953. Transcribed and edited by R. N. Hall.

Li, Y, Yao, L, Li, J, et al. (2020) Stability issues of RT?PCR testing of SARS?CoV?2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID?19. Journal of Medical Virology, 1,6.

NHS England and NHS Improvement (2020) Guidance and standard operating procedure COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories. London, NHS England and NHS Improvement.

OffGuardian (2020) 12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic.

Ogenstad S, Peace K, Liu L (2020) Accurate COVID-19 Testing in Clinical Trials. Unpublished paper submitted to Journal of Bioharmaceutical Statistics.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E et al.(2012) HIV ‘ A virus like no other. Posted at the Perth Group website July 12th.

Pollock A, Macfarlane A, Godden S (2012) Dismantling the signposts to public health? NHS data under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Roche (2020) Covid-19 Factsheet. Cobas’-SARS-CoV-2. Fact Sheet. Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Pleasanton, California.

Schierwater B, Metzler D, Kr’uger K, Streit B (2009) The effects of nested primer binding sites on the reproducibility of PCR: mathematical modeling and computer simulation studies. Journal of Computational Biology 3, 235.

Smyth C, Kennedy D, Kenber B ( 2020). “Britain has millions of coronavirus antibody tests, but they don’t work” London April 6.

University of Maryland (2020) Koch’s Postulates to Identify the Causative Agent of an Infectious Disease.

White DO, Fenner FJ. (1986) Medical Virology. San Diego, Academic Press.

Young BE et al. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARSCoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020 March 3.

Zhu N et al. (2020) A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl Journal of Medicine. January 14.


Dr Kevin P Corbett completed both undergraduate and postgraduate training in Art at the University of Reading (1979) and The Slade School of Fine Art, University College London (1981). Kevin qualified as a Registered Nurse in 1986 becoming part of the commissioned staff for Broderip Ward at The Middlesex Hospital, London, Britain’s first purpose-built HIV/AIDS unit, opened by Princess Diana in 1987. Postgraduate nursing research followed at King’s College London (1987-1989) into improving metred dose inhalation through patient training in the physiology of the inhaled route. This won support from the Stimulating Progress fund of London’s North East Thames Regional Health Authority and Vitalograph Ltd (UK). Doctoral research (1995-2001) focused on patients’ indeterminate experiences of the tests used in HIV/AIDS, the ELISA, Western blot and PCR tests. Kevin has more than thirty years’ experience in gaining ‘150k+ in research funds for leading and participating as principal and co-instigator. He is a qualified nurse educator who has worked in university education, research and public health at Kingston/St.George’s University of London, University of York, Liverpool John Moores, Canterbury Christ Church University and Middlesex University. Kevin also has experience in acute clinical, forensic and community nursing with over one hundred research outputs in peer-reviewed, patient-reviewed and citizen science publications. Current research and consultancy is focused on human physiology, visual art and citizen participation in science and technology.


KPC Research and Consultancy Limited gratefully acknowledge the valuable feedback received from all of the reviewers during preparation of the manuscript revision prior to publication. Monograph design by KPC Research and Consultancy Limited.
Kevin P. Corbett has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this Work. All rights reserved.
© Kevin P. Corbett

ISBN 978-1-5272-6214-0
Designed and Printed in Great Britain
KPC Research and Consultancy Ltd
[email protected]

Monograph freely available for download at:

How to cite this monograph:
Corbett K (2020) Monograph One. Where is the Evidence For The Existence of The ‘novel Coronavirus’, SARS-CoV-2? The Coronahysteria Series:’SARS-CoV-2′, the ‘novel Coronavirus’. London, KPC Research and Consultancy Limited. April 2020. ISBN 978-1-5272-6214-0