alicespringstomind

Today’s “new world order conspiracists” have impressive backgrounds which seem a little confusing when they don’t subscribe to the exciting campaign of lockdown methods and case counting. Their expertise includes areas such as virology, epidemiology, pathology, toxicology, statistics and microbiology. Few of the many thousands speaking out are employed by government or connected to the enormous network of Gates Foundation funding. Even fewer of them are ever given air time in mainstream media outlets. Each of them seems financially independent in some way, either through retirement or private enterprise, with one or two stating that their employer has supported their right to speak out. Daring to speak out seems to spontaneously combust them into conspiracists, anti-vaxxers and murderous nutcases. Yet when you hear them speak, they seem informed and principled? In no particular order, below is a summary of a few of the most articulate lockdown opponents and links to their most recent interviews.

Scott Atlas speaking with The Epoch Times in this ten minute interview, discusses the harms caused to American society directly due to lockdown policies, showing that economic damage is only a small part of the overall picture and that public health has been harmed, not protected.

In this ten minute interview Professor Kulldorff states “As I work with both drugs and vaccines I have a principle that I don’t take any money from any pharmaceutical companies. It is important to have academic scientists who don’t have any conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies and who can therefore be unbiased when they voice their view on the safety of these drugs and vaccines“. This is absolutely key given the surreal levels of corruption revealed in public health over the past year.

Dr Rodger Hodkinson interview with Taylor Hudak at The Last American Vagabond. A brief summary of his points is:

There is no need for the degree of fear that is constantly amplified. Whilst the virus is real, politicians playing medicine in reaction to the virus is a hoax.

The scale of threat for the working well and children is similar to an epidemic influenza, or less. The high risk demographic are elderly people in nursing and long care homes with co-morbidities. Even though their risk is three to four times higher than influenza, it remains a very survivable event, at around 96% chance of surviving Covid compared to 99% chance of surviving influenza.

Using PCR testing to diagnose “cases” allows for lies, distortions and exaggerations at every turn, all designed to maintain fear. None of the measures being enforced such as masks, travel restrictions, social distancing and lockdowns, do anything to contain transmission of a highly transmissible respiratory virus. An abnormal laboratory result conflated to mean sickness is an intentional lie used to create and support a crisis that really does not exist. Natural immunity is always superior to vaccine induced immunity. Desperate to retrieve their freedoms, people are being intimidated into wanting to take an experimental vaccine which comes with physiological risks that are being neither investigated nor made public.

Sucharit Bhakdi has given multiple interviews speaking out against the pandemic response. Including an April interview, also with Taylor Hudak at The Last American Vagabond. He says pretty much the same thing as Dr Hodgkinson, calling this a “Laboratory Test Pandemic”. Covid-19 is not one-tenth as dangerous as we were supposed to believe a year ago. For those aged under 70 years old it is less dangerous than influenza. The test being used in this pandemic has turned medicine upside down. Finding fragments of a virus is not diagnostic, particularly not in people who have no symptoms. Using this test to remove people’s freedoms in the name of viral control is criminal. These vaccines will not control transmission of the virus that causes Covid-19 because they introduce antibodies into the bloodstream whilst for respiratory virus control we need an immune response to mount in our respiratory tract, which relies on t-cell immunity, which is not offered by vaccination. He also describes his concerns relating to the safety of these experimental vaccines. “If you are under 70 and you want to take this vaccine, then do it; but you can’t die from this virus and you can die from the vaccine. And there have been deaths already. If you have a pre-existing illness and you are under 70, the risk of dying is still only 5 in 10,000 infections. If you think you can reduce the chances of dying then do it but I can tell you that the number of severe adverse events far exceeds 5 per 10,000 shots. I certainly won’t do it for myself, and I won’t do it for my children, because I think it’s absolutely foolish”.

John Lee’s interview at Unlocked is a measured, calm, rational summary of the complex array of issues stemming out of this pandemic. “Lockdowns were never a public health measure that had been considered before they were introduced in response to this epidemic“. He touches on the much-rejected theory that rather than human intervention affecting viral spread, biological factors related to population immunity are far more likely to be the reason. He states that PCR tests are not a way to diagnose disease and that claims of Covid-19 deaths have been largely over-counted due to use of these tests.

Nick Hudson is the spokesman and a co-founder of PANDA ~ Pandemics Data and Analytics, a growing international public health organisation of volunteers from various relevant public health backgrounds. Doctors, nurses, psychologists, epidemiologists, virologists, pathologists and a raft of other professions all trying to fight the pseudoscience which has taken a stranglehold over institutionalised public health. Many work with Panda anonymously in order to protect their employment and/or professional licences. Nick’s April presentation to a group of businessmen at an investment conference in South Africa is a half hour summary plus another half hour of addressing questions from the audience, of the raft of false information underlying the official global pandemic response. As usual, inflated death numbers emerging from PCR testing which is not diagnostic, is discussed.

Professor Bhattacharya is one of the three Great Barrington Declaration lead signatories, arguing for focused protection of the vulnerable over locking down society. He has reviewed the literature to conclude that lockdown had no impact on viral transmission whilst causing maximum societal harm. In this ten minute interview with The Epoch Times he describes the harms of lockdowns which he states are an extraordinary measure previously rejected by pandemic guidelines. They have caused massive collateral damage including exacerbated poverty and starvation in the poor world; increased presentations of advanced cancer in people not engaging with services due to lockdown; massive increases in mental health and suicidal ideation in the young. He describes the enormous harm of encouraging panic in the public, and that “once you ring a bell of panic and fear, it is very hard to undo”, including causing extreme misperceptions in the level of risk involved with this virus.

These are only seven examples of thousands of eminent public health experts speaking out at great personal cost. What they share in common is principles of public health and social justice, which are completely absent from lockdown policies. It is extremely difficult not to feel very dark about the reasons that these principled and informed experts fighting for basic decency would be maligned and silenced.