We Didn’t, We Still Don’t

The city of Shanghai are in strict lockdown more than two years after the first Chinese lockdown was promoted as the way to “beat a virus”. Unable to leave their homes, many are starving and unable to access life saving medical care. Even CNN have reported on it (so it must be true!).

This short video shared to social media shows people protesting from windows in unison across multiple tower blocks. A drone flies overhead, reportedly announcing instructions to follow government orders, close the windows, and “control your soul’s desire for freedom“!!

Cats and dogs are being rounded up for mass slaughter, children separated from parents, and vulnerable people have lost access to food, water and necessary medical care. Many have even left their homes to protest. Check out the “public health” costumes of the guards!

Bruce Aylward, WHO Covid-19 Advisor, made this claim in February 2020.

Errrr … No we don’t, Bruce.

Lockdown is not a public health intervention with an ounce of merit. Lockdown is steeped in Xi Jinpings Fangkong philosophy of population-wide surveillance, control and punishment. Western democracies should be repelling this sinister intervention which has caused inconceivable death and destruction, especially to the world’s poorest. Evidence based outbreak control practices have always respected human rights and democratic values first and foremost. These values are lifesaving and promote health. Where they are not upheld, populations have much poorer health outcomes.

Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute interviewed lawyer Michael P. Senger last week, about What’s Going On In China. Senger is the author of “Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World”.

Professor Knut Wittkowski is one of the most highly credentialed public health scientists in the world. He has practised and taught Infectious Disease Epidemiology for 35 years. He has spoken out against the US (and global) public health policies of lockdown since early 2020. Thousands of other experts have also spoken out, meeting the same hostile resistance from Trusted News Initiative outlets across the globe. TNI’s authorised “experts” belong to the same funding network as the media outlets themselves. In basic public health, and any other discipline, that equates to unacceptable conflicts of interest risking extreme bias.

In this interview with Jeffrey Tucker, Professor Wittkowski provides an easy-to-understand overview of the epidemiology of respiratory viruses and why lockdown measures for Covid-19 were always destined to fail. The short answer is because they don’t follow any of the many decades of evidence regarding effective outbreak control.

Professor Wittkowski also describes the experience, similar to my own and many peers, of very standard public health perspectives, based on “Public Health 101”, suddenly becoming aberrations. Politically motivated new and novel approaches have been aggressively implemented, marketed by a powerful media machine convincing the world that anyone speaking out is “dangerous”. These untested approaches have and continue, to cost many lives, failing dismally on every measure, except the highly successful enrichment of their architects.

[In New York], the vast majority of people who died were the vulnerable. Who could have been protected if it had not been for the universal mitigation. Which was correctly criticised, although not strongly enough, in the Great Barrington Declaration. This [knowledge] was nothing new … Most people calling themselves epidemiologists today, didn’t know how to spell the word in 2020. But now they’re experts“.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s