The NHS drew up secret plans to withdraw hospital care from people in nursing homes in the event of a pandemic, The Telegraph can disclose.
Confidential Whitehall documents show that the NHS plans refused treatment to those in their 70s and that “support” would instead be offered to use so-called “end of life pathways”.
The strategy was drawn up by NHS England following a pandemic planning exercise in 2016 and was designed to stop hospitals being overwhelmed.
British health chiefs did war-game a coronavirus pandemic before the nation was eventually hit by Covid but tried to keep it secret, it was revealed today.
Matt Hancock — who faced a grilling from MPs today about No10’s failures throughout the virus crisis — has only ever confessed to carrying out a mock-up of a flu crisis called Exercise Cygnus.
Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative
Bear in mind that in the heat of this pandemic, papers printed in important journals were peer-reviewed within 10 weeks; one rattled through the process in just nine days for Nature. But, like Petrovsky, I have heard similar stories from many other frustrated experts who confronted the conventional wisdom that this lethal virus was a natural spillover event. Some could not even get letters published, let alone challenge those key papers promoting the Chinese perspective which have since turned out to be flawed or wrong.
Only now is acceptance emerging that the science establishment colluded to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, assisted by prominent experts with clear conflicts of interest, patsy politicians and a pathetic media that mostly failed to do its job. And yet, at the heart of this scandal lie some of the world’s most influential science journals. These should provide a forum for pulsating debate as experts explore and test theories, especially on something as contentious and fascinating as the possible origins of a global pandemic. Instead, some have played a central role in shutting down discussion and discrediting alternative views on the origins, with disastrous consequences for our understanding of events.
Rob Verkerk, Founder, Executive and Scientific Director of the Alliance for Natural Health International, a scientist who has for 30 years been exploring positive ways to span the gulfs between science and the law, between academia and industry, and between governments and their people.
Perhaps the most important point to grasp is that a pandemic is a construct, not an object. There is nothing you can point at which is the pandemic, only various data points indicating that one exists.
“We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.”
To guard against censorship, a transcript from https://dryburgh.com has been archived below. Please visit the source in the following link: https://dryburgh.com/knut-wittkowski-lockdowns-are-creating-a-new-virus/
Dr Knut Wittkowski
Dr. Wittkowski received his PhD in computer science from the University of Stuttgart and his ScD in Medical Biometry from the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, both Germany. He worked for 15 years with Klaus Dietz, a leading epidemiologist who coined the term “reproduction number”, on the Epidemiology of HIV before. Around 1990, he was one of the few to predict that HIV would not spread among Caucasian heterosexuals. After teaching epidemiology at the University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut, he was for 20 years head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University, New York.
Dr. Wittkowski is currently the CEO of ASDERA LLC, a company discovering novel interventions against complex diseases from data of genome-wide association studies, including a nutritional intervention to reduce cellular support for virus replication and to improve cardiovascular and metabolic health as a natural strategy to reduce the burden and stop the continuation of the COVID epidemics.
- March 23rd, AP News: Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel “We basically have a new pandemic. Essentially we have a new virus, obviously of the same type but with completely different characteristics. Significantly more deadly, significantly more infectious, and infectious for longer.” (Germany extends virus lockdown till mid-April as cases rise)
Host ➝ 00:00
Welcome. Today it’s for anyone who may or may not know me, I am Tania The Herbalist, and today I have the privilege of talking and chatting with Knut Wittkowski. Knut is not any medical expert, actually. He’s got a master’s in biostatistics, a PhD in computer science, a doctor of science and medical biometry, including genetics and epidemiology. And you were former head of research, design and biostatistics at the Rockefeller Foundation.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 00:36
And epidemiology at the Rockefeller University here in New York.
Host ➝ 00:42
Beautiful. Thank you for that. Well, you now have gone viral because of your expertise and your many articles and especially one of your most recent ones about how much lockdown policy does not actually agree with the established epidemiological policy. Because, of course, we know the experts controlling the local policy are motivated by fear and politics. Can you talk about that a little bit for us?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 01:12
If we go back one year and if you still remember the reason for having a lockdown, people were afraid that the situation in the US, and in particular in New York, at the time would become as dire as in the North of Italy where the hospital system was totally overwhelmed.
And one could understand that even though I didn’t share that fear, but I could understand it. But a month later we had the data from the CDC that there would never be a major problem.
The hospital ship that had anchored in New York left. The Javits center, the conference center that had 2000 beds, was never used. The tents in Central Park put up by Mount Sinai hospital, also not used.
There was a shortage here and there, once in a while, but there was no, not even close to the hospital system collapsing.
So one could have reopened and said, well, it was three, four weeks, too bad. We were overly pessimistic, overly careful, but everybody would have understood that was erring on the side of caution.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 02:52
And then suddenly the game posts shifted. It was not anymore about the hospital system collapsing. Today it’s not either.
We have currently something like less than 15% of all hospital utilization is due to COVID. That is noticeable, but it doesn’t mean that there is a major problem.
Again, there may be a local problem here or there, but that is not, should not be enough to run the whole economy against the wall.
So it became somewhat unclear what the objective of the lockdown should be. Should it be that the country should be locked down until there is no single virus around anymore? Somehow nobody actually explained that. Why should we control the virus? Why should we stop the spread? And could we?
Host ➝ 04:11
Right. So, from your expertise, what is the difference between COVID and influenza?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 04:22
If we had not the tools to sequence the virus and had learned in late December  or early January , I forgot when it was, that this happened to be a coronavirus, one of those that hit us every now and then, rather than influenza virus that hits us a bit more frequently, we would not have seen any difference between this and the epidemic, for instance, of 2017/2018, which was also a bad flu.
Host ➝ 04:59
Right. And now if we let it run its course the way we do other viruses, how long do you think it would actually be before we could reach herd immunity?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 05:08
It will take about six weeks and can be shifted a bit in different parts of the country, depending on where the virus gets there [“endemic equilibrium herd immunity”].
So it was here in New York earlier, and the epidemic ended even before the lockdowns started. I mean, that infections went down before the lockdown started. It came later in the South.
So in the South, we have seen the effect of flattening the curve. You are delaying the infections and illnesses and death for a couple of months until you reopen. And then the delayed events happen because lockdowns do not prevent anything from happening. They just delay it a bit.
Host ➝ 05:59
Is there any scientific background behind lockdowns?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 06:04
Nobody has ever done a lockdown for any disease. So it was not quite clear how this experiment would end.
Host ➝ 06:16
Right, right. And so many are actually are, sorry, go ahead.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 06:22
And what we saw was that it backfired in many ways. So one thing that we have seen, and we know since October, when the viruses in Spain and France had been sequenced, we know that because of the lockdowns giving the virus enough time to mutate, we had escape mutations that started the wave in November. So we are currently experiencing the result of the lockdowns. Without lockdowns, we would not have any COVID right now.
Host ➝ 07:06
Right. And it’s funny because many seem to argue that the lockdown measures is actually what decreased the potential mortalities that could have happened if it wasn’t for these measures. So really, how effective are the measures like social distancing, isolation, things like that.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 07:22
They’re very effective. They have cost many jobs and the economy a lot of money. So they were very effective [sarcasm].
Host ➝ 07:32
Right, right. And here in Ontario, I’m in Canada in Ontario here, we’ve now got a stay at home order. So, you know, even things like going to bargaining and skating and things like that outdoors, they’re almost saying, don’t do, stay at home. Only leave for essentials
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 07:51
Because otherwise, we need that [restrictions breeding variants] urgently, because otherwise we run the risk that there will be no new epidemic in a few months [sarcasm]. Because the lockdowns are essential for the virus to develop new strains.
“because of the lockdowns giving the virus enough time to mutate, we had escape mutations that started the wave in November. So we are currently experiencing the result of the lockdowns. Without lockdowns, we would not have any COVID right now.”
Our immune system develops typically something like five or six different types of antibodies to protect us from mutations that might happen while we are infected to make sure that even if there is a mutation in one of the epitopes, the targets of the antibodies, if there is a mutation, then there should be other antibodies that still are sufficient to prevent the virus from being replicated and from spreading.
However, if you give the long enough and the virus mutates at a rate of one or two mutations a month. So if you give it three months, there’s a good chance that there will be six consecutive mutations, one for each of these antibodies.
And at the end, the human immunity does not capture the virus anymore. And the virus can spread.
We have, even though it’s technically mostly the same virus, but experience as if it were a totally new virus. And this is what we’re seeing right now.
“Nobody has ever done a lockdown for any disease. So it was not quite clear how this experiment would end.”
What we have seen since November is a new virus, or actually a family of new viruses, because similar things happened in Spain and France and in the UK and in South Africa and also in the United States. So it’s a very… the common thing, if you give the virus enough time with the lockdowns, it will mutate and you have the next epidemic.
Host ➝ 09:51
Right. And how important is it for us to be outdoors and being with nature and being outside and getting fresh air? Because I think a stay at home orders, I believe could be obviously detrimental, especially for the healthy and the young and children.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 10:07
I mean, I don’t want to go there. It’s too frustrating to see a whole generation of children being deprived of their wellbeing and their development.
The children can not, it’s immunologically dramatic, because they cannot develop the immune responses that they need for the rest of their life.
They don’t have the social contacts that they have in school. They don’t learn.
If you’re taking away one year in the development – and it’s now getting more than that – one year in the development of a child that’s below the age of 10, you’re creating a huge gap and you’re preventing this child from having all the opportunities that they otherwise would have. And the tragic thing here is that there is no reason for it.
Children do not get ill – with very rare exceptions.
Yes, we have had in the United States, something like – I haven’t checked the last week.
So maybe it’s 30 deaths in children from age four to age fourteen. Thirty. We had over 50 from influenza during the same time period. Yes. It happens with every flu, a few children die. And I feel sorry for the families who are affected. For them, it’s a tragedy.
However, should we close down the country of 335 million people in the US, a bit less in Canada, but should we destroy the life of hundreds of millions of people, because there is a risk for some children. And most of these children who die have co-morbidities, have diabetes, have other diseases, other immune diseases. The balance, this is totally out of balance.
Host ➝ 12:51
Yeah. And at what point in time did you realize that these measures are going to kill more people than prevent?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 13:01
That was known from the very beginning because the measures do not reduce COVID deaths, but they’re causing lots of others.
And so we knew from the very beginning that there would be more deaths because of the lockdowns, unless we are counting the risk that the hospital system would collapse and then we would have many deaths for other reasons.
But as soon as it was clear that the hospital system would not be collapsing – and it still is not collapsing – the lockdowns should have ended.
And the schools should never have been closed, because children, except for the very rare exceptions, don’t develop any severe illness. So they will not end up in a hospital.
Even the young adults don’t end up in hospitals in relevant numbers. We knew that 50% of all people who died, many of them in hospitals, were older than 80 years.
So if you are below the age of 60, your risk of having a severe disease or even dying is irrelevant. I mean, when we cross the street, we can always be hit by a brick and still not everybody wears hard hat all the time, because there is a theoretical risk that you may be hit by a brick.
And here, for those under the age of 60, about, it is a theoretical risk, like the many theoretical risks that we are facing every day in our life.
“That was known from the very beginning because the measures do not reduce COVID deaths, but they’re causing lots of others.”
And we have to take risks because otherwise we couldn’t live. And that’s what we have right now. We cannot live.
Host ➝ 15:17
Now. I have to ask you, how is the data for COVID being collected now in comparison to previous respiratory infections?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 15:29
I have been working many years ago on HIV when I predicted correctly that HIV would never spread among the Caucasian heterosexual population, which at that time, politicians and media were very scared of. They thought all of Europe and the United States would become depopulated because of HIV. Didn’t happen.
But there actually, the reporting was good. We knew for every case and then “case” meant you have the disease, you have a problem. So for every case, it was reported, when was it diagnosed, and when was it reported.
So these days, the difference were there. And as epidemiologists, we could use that to make more sense of the data and the definitions were not changed all the time [unlike with COVID-19].
I just learned today that it seems that PCR, the definition of what a positive PCR test is, is being changed from running for 35 cycles to only running for 25 cycles, which makes the test less sensitive.
And then of course, we know that the vaccines are working [sarcasm] because there are fewer infections, except at the same time, the test was changed.
And we had had so many changes. What is a “case”? A case traditionally is somebody who has an illness, and then you find out why that person is ill.
Right now you have people who want to travel or have a job requirement. So they’re standing here on the street to get tested. And if they happened to get tested positive, they are called a case. They’re not ill, they probably will never be. They may not even be infected. They may just have some virus sitting in the nose that never got into the body. And you call them cases? Everything in this epidemic is done upside down. It almost feels like people want to obscure what’s going on because we know that during an epidemic, you don’t change the measures that you take, because then you cannot compare it anymore. And here it happens all the time, which is frustrating.
Host ➝ 18:28
Now I have to ask you because of course I admire your courage and you speaking out against this, but why do you find that more medical experts are not speaking about this, especially when you hear about MDs and even some neurologists, but you’re never hearing about a virologist or an epidemiologist that are really speaking out on this, which, like yourself, are the best people.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 18:50
We have three virologists speaking out in the United States and only virologists. Different areas of science have different objectives. And people are trained for doing different things.
“Everything in this epidemic is done upside down. It almost feels like people want to obscure what’s going on”
An MD is trained to make a diagnosis with an individual patient, find the treatment, convince the patient that he or she should take the treatment, follow up and see how it works. This is by and large, what an MD is treated to do.
A virologist studies the structure of the virus. What is it composed of and where does it bind? And how does the cell with the virus binds, interact with the cell? How can, what would be potential vaccine? How, what structure, what epitopes would we use? Things like that.
And then there are epidemiologists who study how does the virus spread? What is the most effective thing to do against the spread of the virus? These questions, no MD and no virologist is trained to deal with these questions because you need mathematical models. You need a lot of experience in dealing with large sets of data, and that is something what epidemiologists do, and they were not heard in March or April.
Host ➝ 20:40
Now, one of the last questions that I have to ask you, of course, just to kind of give people a little bit of light because many are starting wake up more and more about the lockdowns kind of being worse than the disease itself, because there’s a lot of implications. What do you think is the proper solution to handle this virus? If you had the option, what’s your solution.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 20:59
Okay. The first thing you already said, let’s reopen schools and the economy. There’s no reason to keep them closed.
Of course, masks can be helpful when worn by those who are vulnerable, and let’s presume masks are effective, and we’re still not quite sure whether they are, but let’s presume that they’re effective. And this would be one of the strategies, the vulnerable, those who have comorbidities and are older can use to pre-protect themselves, to self isolate while the virus is running among the low risk people and taking its natural course, which will have very few severe events and very few deaths. Because as I said, it is mostly the elderly who die.
So masks should be worn by those who are vulnerable and by the people who directly interact with the vulnerable, because if you are helping somebody from the wheelchair into the beds, or the other way around there is physical interactions and close proximity. And these are situations where the risk of transmission is highest. And so to help the elderly or the vulnerable to self isolate, those directly interacting with them should wear a mask.
And also, if possible, try to distance a bit. Everybody else should not because if everybody else does the same thing, then the vulnerable wouldn’t have an advantage anymore. The virus would spread a bit more slowly overall. It would spread at the same rate among the elderly and vulnerable as among the young and healthy.
So if everybody wears a mask and does other ways of distancing, we are increasing the number of deaths.
So just to put the numbers that we have in context. In the United States, we had so far about 400,000 deaths, 200,000 were from COVID-20, since November, which would not have been here without lockdowns.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 23:42
And then among those among 200,000, 40% were in nursing homes. Now the nursing homes – we’ve been talking about protecting the vulnerable. If the vulnerable had been protected better, there would have been much fewer deaths. There may have been about a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand deaths is normal for a flu. It’s at the upper end, but this is nothing unusual for flu.
So we should keep everything open and we should focus on the things that are really dangerous. It’s not dangerous to be coughing or sneezing for a few days while you have a flu or even COVID like many people have.
It gets dangerous when you end up in the hospital, in the emergency room and then you may die. So we have to prevent that. And now I’m talking a bit pro domo. My company is working on something like that. One of these strategies where we are giving people the option to prevent, to reduce their comorbidities.
And without comorbidities, almost nobody dies.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 25:16
And also to reduce the rate by which the virus spreads in the body, within the body. Because we are not dying of the virus itself. We could live with that virus forever. It would produce a couple of viruses on the side, but that’s not a big deal.
“There may have been about a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand deaths is normal for a flu. It’s at the upper end, but this is nothing unusual for flu.”
What we are dying off is the immune system. When it has the antibodies. After one week of incubation time, the immune system kills all infected cells. And if many cells are infected, like in the lung, then a large part of the lung cells are being killed. Now that’s causing a problem. If people are young and healthy, they can live with it. If they’re old and a bit fragile, that huge wound is killing them. So it’s the reaction of the immune system to the virus that’s killing. And that depends, how dangerous it is, depends on the viral load.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 26:26
So when we can reduce the rate by which the virus replicates it’s by only 10%, then for every seven hour replication cycle. Then after the five days, we have reduced the number of cells that became infected by about 80 to 90%. And then the wound created by the immune system is much smaller and everybody survives it.
So we should not close down schools and the economy, we should focus on helping the elderly and vulnerable to self isolate. And we should also focus on dealing with the one problem that is really important, and that is preparing the immune system better to deal with that infection in a natural way so that the disease is not so severe. And if the disease is not so severe, then what are we talking about?
We are not closing the country down for the common cold. And if we succeed in reducing the severity of that disease to that of a common cold, and I think that is possible. And even if it were to the severity of a regular flu, then why do we need to lock down?
Host ➝ 28:07
All right. Thank you for that information, Knut. Is there anything else that you would want to add to any of this?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 28:20
I think we covered most of the things. The advice to our politicians is very simple. I am not the only one. If you think of the Great Barrington Declaration that has been signed now by over a million scientists.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 28:45
We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.
Einstein defined the word insanity, and said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Doing lockdowns over and over again will have no other results than creating the viruses that are capable of starting a new epidemic. And then we are exactly at the point where we were before.
Although it may be a bit worse because the new virus may also be resistant against some of the cross immunity that we already had from other coronavirus infections. So we may need more people to get infected, to get over the next virus.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 30:13
And then I have one fear.
And that is that every new generation of viruses here, the virus genome gets closer and closer to the human genome because our immune system can make antibodies only against stretches of genetic information on the genome that are unique to the virus.
And just a couple of weeks ago, three weeks or so, a paper was published and there it said less than 10% of the virus genome is available for the immune system to make antibodies against it. And then every generation, the virus mutates and becomes a bit closer to something that is already in the human genome. And then it becomes more and more difficult for the immune system to make antibodies. This situation has never arrised in the whole history of humankind. The lockdowns are creating a problem that has never existed. And for which nature did not find a solution. We should let nature do it. We should adjust. We should adapt. But we should not think that we can control nature.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 32:06
My first name is Knut, and I had a namesake in the 11th century, more or less exactly a thousand years ago. And he got annoyed by people thinking he was so powerful he could do anything.
And so he walked to the beach and told the tide to stay away. Just to show that nature was much more powerful than even the most powerful King at the time. Of course the tide didn’t stay away.
“With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic.”
Now, since then, during the last 1000 years, I don’t think there was a single politician who would have said nature is more powerful than I am. Politicians think they know everything better, everything better than nature. And they can control a virus like the tide. We cannot control the tide and we can not control a virus. We can only make it worse.
Host ➝ 33:25
Very well said, very well said. It’s true. Let nature run its course is really the ultimate thing that we can do for proper herd immunity and getting back to some form of normalcy. So I appreciate your wisdom. I appreciate your words. And I appreciate your work, Knut. Where can people find you if they want to connect with you on your website? I don’t know if you’re on social media, where can they connect with you more?
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 33:51
My name is unique. If you look for Knut Wittkowski, you will find me.
“We have to stop the nonsense. We have entered a vicious cycle. With every new wave, we’re starting a new wave of lockdowns. The lockdowns are creating a new virus. Then we have a new epidemic. We’re starting a new lockdown that creates a new virus.”
Host ➝ 34:00
Right. And, of course, your website is asdera.com. You’ve got lots of information there. So anyone who’s looking for it, interviews, articles, everything that you’ve done.
Knut Wittkowski ➝ 34:18
I will put this there too, as soon as it gets published. So thank you, Tania.
Host ➝ 34:25
Well, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. And we’ll do this again hopefully soon sometime. Thank you.
Medical and scientific experts now agree that bacteria, not influenza viruses, were the greatest cause of death during the 1918 flu pandemic.
…That pneumonia causes most deaths in an influenza outbreak is well known. Late 19th century physicians recognised pneumonia as the cause of death of most flu victims. While doctors limited fatalities in other 20th-century outbreaks with antibiotics such as penicillin, which was discovered in 1928, but did not see use in patients until 1942.
…McCullers’ research suggests that influenza kills cells in the respiratory tract, providing food and a home for invading bacteria. On top of this, an overstressed immune system makes it easier for the bacteria to get a foothold.
Ivor Cummins aka the Fat Emperor – gives James the lowdown on why you can’t trust anything our governments tell us about Covid-19. If you want the facts on Coronavirus – how deadly is it? do lockdowns and masks work? how does it compare with previous pandemics? – you’ve come to the right place
Please support the Delingpod:
Mirror archives are available below if this video is removed from YouTube.
The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.
Our mission: save the NHS by neglecting ourselves and the NHS. I received numerous CCG advice and flow-charts on the coronavirus-centric mass processing of patients. Most of it was about whom not to see, and who could pass the pearly gates of the hospitals. Then there was the advice on the parallel IT and video-consultation medical industrial revolution: our new NHS normal.
…For clarity, the “D” in coronavirus means “disease”, the second “S” in SARS-CoV-2 means “syndrome”. In a sense, the WHO had already decided Covid-19 was a distinct disease entity caused by a novel coronavirus before characterising it as a syndrome called SARS-2, and before the naming of the virus as SARS-CoV-2. The importance of scientific syntax and semantics cannot be overemphasised. Such cognitive slip-ups trickle unnoticed into general parlance and may have fatal consequences for us as a species.
Without a definite cause, one cannot definitively conclude to treat anything in particular. Is Covid-19 a syndrome, a mixed bag of symptoms and signs that has been negligently and politically globally fast-tracked to a scientifically wrong conclusion? Is it, in practice, a conflation of different, distinct disease entities including influenzae, rhinoviruses, pneumoniae and other coronaviruses, not to mention other non-infectious phenomena?
- AIDS was a testing pandemic, just like COVID-19.
- Many of the excess deaths for COVID-19 were due to inappropriately high dosages of hydroxychloroquine during experimental study trials.
- High COVID-19 excess deaths stopped after the trials were ended.
- Professor Martin Landry, leader of the UK-based Recovery trial, may have made a mistake in proposing high dosage of hydroxychloroquine. It seems he confused it with diiodohydroxyquinoline, treatment for treatment of amoebiasis.
- The treatment caused the damage.
- The danger of over-treatment is everywhere because the industry wants to sell diseases.
- COVID-19 is a self-limiting disease.
- The data shows that COVID-19 has no more killing potential than the yearly flu.
- Masks and lockdowns are ridiculous and damaging the whole population.
- It’s a political thing and not a health problem.
- Remdesivir is an immunosuppressant and useless against COVID-19.
- You have to live with viruses and you can’t fight against them.
- There is no treatment against COVID-19.
- The treatment against COVID-19 is to rest, like the flu.
- The problem is testing. If you stop the test, you’ll see nothing.
- Lockdowns were an overreaction.
- Vaccines are probably not a solution. You’ll have to vaccinate everyone every year. It’s good businesses.
- COVID-19 is not a dread disease that will kill everyone.
- The initially high case fatality rate of COVID-19 was because the medical community didn’t know how to treat it.
- The fatality rate of flu is 0.1% (1 in every 1,000 who are infected end up dying).
- Ventilators are the wrong option if you do not have an obstructed airway disease.
- Prod. Ioannidis: The infection fatality ratio of COVID-19 is 0.15%. This is pretty much the same as the flu.
- We should just ask people to be careful but otherwise go about your daily life.
- These things pass every year. This is the first ‘social media pandemic.’
- The normal practice for intensive care beds in the NHS is to run them almost full. This is because a lot of intensive care bed assignment is planned.
- ICU use at the height of the pandemic was has very low because the NHS was run as light as possible to cope with a second wave.
- Respiratory viruses don’t do waves.
- This is not opinion but is basic understanding among experts in the field. It is supposrted by the highest quality science. Sir Patrick Vallance knows this.
- COVID-19 follows the Gompertz Curve.
- You have immunity after your body has fought off a respiratory virus. If that was not the case, you’d be dead. Immunity probably lasts decades based on evidence from other viruses.
- Gompertz Curve is identical in all heavily infection regions.
- Something awefull happened in the middle of the year: PCR swab test.
- It is not true that if you test more people you’ll save more lives. A certain percentage of the test will come up positive even if there’s no virus in you.
- False positive rate wasn’t released.
- Kate Barker wrote in a government document on June 3rd, 2020, to SAGE: test has an unknown false positive rate; based on similar tests it may be between 1%-2%. This is a big deal.
- Based on 1%: for every 1,000 people you test, 10 will come back positive, even if they don’t have the virus. If prevalence is only 0.1% as reported by ONS, only 1 in 1,000 will be genuine. This means 9 in 10–in other words 90%–are false.
- Pillar 2 testing would have caused of the most of the positives to be false.
- 1,700 people die normally every day in the UK. During the summer, only about 10 were dying per day of covid.
- More testing, more false positives. We’ll never escape covid if we keep testing because most of the positives will be false. This is immunology 101. Sir Patrick Vallance would have known this.
- Influenza is a high mutation-rate virus. Coronaviruses are relatively stable so once you’ve recovered, you are probably immune for decades.
- COVID-19 kills 0.15%-0.2%, slightly more lethal than the average flu. Once it’s gone through the population, it won’t come back.
- 99.94% survive COVID-19 and will be resistant for a long time.
- COVID-19 is 80% similar to SARS-COV-1.
- People who were exposed to SARS have T-cell immunity 17 years later. Evidence for COVID-19 all point in direction.
- Our bodies have many lines of defense, including innate immunity and T-cells. Antibodies are in the last line of defense.
- Study shows around 30% prior immunity to SARS-COV-2. It was due to exposure to common-cold coronaviruses.
- The claim made by Sir Patrick Vallance that more than 90% are susceptible is a lie.
- Mass testing of the well populating is the worst problem as it generates false positives, fear and control.
- If you’re immune, you can’t be infected or infectious. Herd immunity is already in play in London.
- If SAGE is correct, London should be ‘ablaze’ with deaths.
- Current testing methods are not forensically sound.
- Tests detect common cold and dead virus.
- SARS-COV-2 has never really been a public health emergency.
- We do not need the vaccine to return to normal. Most people are not in danger from COVID-19. More people are in danger from car crashes and we accept that risk.
- Best case scenario is that the vaccine is 50% effective. Natural immunity might be better.
- The most vulnerable often don’t respond well to vaccines and die anyway.
- SAGE is giving lethally wrong advice.
- The reason the pandemic is not over is because SAGE says it’s not.
Exact approximations vary but the survival rate for Covid-19 is thought to be somewhere above 99 per cent, and maybe as high as 99.8 per cent.
…The average age of someone who dies from coronavirus is 82.4, which, by the way, is nearly identical to the average life expectancy in Britain (81.1).
…In the first week of October, there were 91,013 cases of coronavirus reported in England and Wales, and 343 Covid-related deaths. That same week a total of 9,954 people died from various causes. Of those, just 4.4 per cent of the death certificates mentioned Covid-19.
Note: This article, published on 5 February 2010, originally appeared in Forbes. It was removed sometime in mid October 2020 with no explanation.
While you can find a capture at archive.org, we have saved a copy here to protect against censorship and for easy sharing.
The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.
Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.
Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?
Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
They did it; but why?
In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.
Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”
But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.
In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”
Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”
Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at [email protected]
More people died in Scotland during a flu epidemic at the turn of the 1990s than the first wave of coronavirus, official figures show.
Public health experts fear the consequences if flu breaks out alongside coronavirus this winter.
In 1989 the seven days to Christmas Eve was Scotland’s deadliest single week since records began in 1974, with 2,400 deaths, which was 1,092 more than the five-year average.
This is far more than the 1,978 people who died in the worst week of the coronavirus pandemic — the second week of April — which was 878 above the five-year average.
By the end of the eight-week cycle of excess deaths in the second week of January 1990 the death toll had reached 14,594 people, 4,122
- Scientists should not be involved in devising and implementing policies.
- The window of opportunity to suppress the virus is gone.
- The toll on public health caused by closed borders will be absolutely awful.
- Indefinite suppression may not have ever been an option.
- Vaccines may be helpful but won’t be a silver bullet.
- The virus is here to stay.
- Vaccines may be effective in reducing symptoms but we can’t gamble on an infection blocking vaccine.
- Some vaccines aren’t always suitable for the entire population.
- Banking everything on a vaccine is not a reasonable approach.
- National level measures are not convincing; targeted measures have more potential.
- Communication has been problematic so public trust has been lost.
- Fear over a long period of time is physiologically unhealthy and doesn’t ever just evaporate.
- The cost of allowing people to choose their own risk-level would be much lower than the current blanket proposals.
- Well-targeted testing can be extremely effective but mass testing in schools is not a good use of tests.
- The ‘medicalization’ of society is worrying.
- Blanket testing of asymptomatic people is completely new and presents multiple ethical problems.
- Proportion of asymptomatic cases for 2009 influenza pandemic was around 50%-75%; this is similar to what we’re finding COVID-19.
- COVID-19 is not so different from other viruses but the global approach is completely different.
- Normalising the mass testing of otherwise healthy testing is very dangerous.
- There’s not much to be gained from comparing the measures and results between countries; the move to technocracy is dangerous.
- Whole societies should not turn around public health.
- A constant climate of fear is counter-productive.
- There were other countries that took a similar approach to Sweden, such as Switzerland.
- Past pandemics have been comparable to COVID-19 but did not have the same response.
- Outbreaks in care homes is nothing new.
- The pandemic phase of COVID-19 should eventually be over by mid to end of 2021 and in all likelihood become endemic.
- The most important message: COVID-19 presents a severe health crisis but it is not a ‘new normal.’
COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities.
A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person’s susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment.
The great 20th-century pandemics, comparable in so many ways to their 21st-century heir, accounted for myriad private tragedies. Yet, unlike this novel coronavirus, their public, political significance was negligible. They were treated as public-health challenges, problems for clinicians, virologists and epidemiologists. And there were arguments at the time that more should have been done to mitigate their harm. But there was no sense of a world ending. No talk of a new normal. No attempt, that is, to reorganise the entirety of societal life around the threat they posed.
Unlike previous epidemics, in addressing COVID-19 nearly all international health organizations and national health ministries have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, even in asymptomatic persons without any history of exposure. This is based on a widespread belief that positive results in these tests are highly reliable. However, data on PCR-based tests for similar viruses show that PCR-based testing produces enough false positive results to make positive results highly unreliable over a broad range of real-world scenarios. This has clinical and case management implications, and affects an array of epidemiological statistics, including the asymptomatic ratio, prevalence, and hospitalization and death rates. Steps should be taken to raise awareness of false positives, reduce their frequency, and mitigate their effects. In the interim, positive results in asymptomatic individuals that haven’t been confirmed by a second test should be considered suspect.