An Intelligent Discussion

Professor Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, and a Physician, Epidemiologist, Health Economist and Public Health Policy expert focusing on infectious diseases in vulnerable populations. He is also co-author and lead signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration with Professor Martin Kulldorff and Professor Sunetra Gupta. He testified to the Corona Ausschuss two weeks ago. A really enjoyable, informative conversation which I have transcribed more or less, below.

Jay Bhattacharya: It’s been an interesting 20 months. The environment at Stanford University. There are a few people who have argued against many of the restrictions and other measures. John Ioannidis, Michael Levitt and a few others. I’ve been there for 35 years and I’ve never seen an environment so closed to open discussion and debate. I think there have been real threats to academic freedom at Stanford which I greatly regret.

Reiner Fuellmich: A well known German professor who was preparing to consult as an expert in the Corona investigative committee’s cases, has had to provide only anonymous support because she is losing everything including her livelihood.

JB: I have worked as an expert pro-bono for about 40 cases. I know that there are many scientific experts who agree that the lockdowns were an unscientific catastrophic mistake. For example, tens of thousands of scientists signed the Great Barrington Declaration and I get emails from them. Several have lost jobs, lost opportunities for grants, lost colleagues. I’ve never seen this before. “It’s good to disagree with each other. We learn from that disagreement. We don’t cancel each other over disagreement” … What’s happened during this pandemic is essentially a freezing-out. I’m not even sure there’s a scientific consensus for lockdowns. What has happened is a small group of scientists have grabbed the discourse and frozen other scientists into thinking that they are alone when they are not.

RF: That is what we think too. After having interviewed about 150 experts from all walks of science from all over the world we have come to the conclusion that this has never really been about health. We are not denying that there’s a virus out there. It’s just that the infection fatality rate is roughly about the same as influenza. So we can’t understand what this is about. It’s definitely not about health.

JB: the key thing is not the IFR, but the sharp gradient in age for risk. People who are older do face a substantial risk with the infection fatality rate, as high as 8% if you are over 70-80yo. But children face a vanishingly low IFR. This is an important point about the policy response.

The right policy response is focused protection of those at risk. Find those at risk, protect them, and then disrupt the rest of society as little as possible. The disruption of society harms everybody. Even the vulnerable. This is the pandemic strategy we followed for a century. Every pandemic before this one, we followed (this strategy) very successfully actually.

Pandemics are going to produce misery and death. This is unfortunately unavoidable. It’s what diseases like this do. The point is minimising harm both from the virus itself, and from the policy. That’s the debate we should have had all of last year, that was suppressed. Instead of allowing that debate to happen, what happened was a panicked response saying we should follow the precautionary principle. With that panic came an impetus to suppress any opposition whatsoever. If you opposed the lockdown then you were in favour of the virus. That’s insane. That weird insane thing froze many, many scientists from speaking up when they otherwise would have.

Viviane Fischer: Regarding the age risk, you also have to consider the pre-existing co-morbidities. So high risk older age people are those in nursing homes, or care.

Wolfgang Wodarg: The median age of Covid-19 death in Germany is 84. This is the time that people die. Many people die in this age group, and they all die with something. We cannot change this. If we find Covid-19, it is in not even 10% of them and there are 200 other (respiratory) viruses also there, helping them to die. This is not a catastrophe that people die very old.

JB: That is a good conversation to have and I agree, in medicine it is never the pathogen itself, but the interaction between the pathogen and the person that is infected that produces the result. So those with underlying conditions are more vulnerable. This is a social conversation that we have about where we put our resources. I don’t want to expose people that we can protect if they are vulnerable.

The problem I have had with the response all along, is that instead of acknowledging this absolutely clear biological fact of this age gradient risk, including with underlying health conditions, and then saying we should acknowledge this and design our response around it. Instead, it was considered that the only way to protect the vulnerable was to close society down. And that has utterly failed. We have five million deaths, a huge number of the deaths are in the elderly and in the USA care home residents. Some people thought that lockdowns would protect the vulnerable, but clearly not.

We do not actually have a technology to protect the spread of this virus. What the lockdowns did, if they protected anybody, was a small group of maybe 30% of the population who could afford to not lose their jobs when working from home. The rest of society, whether vulnerable or not, was told to go and get exposed, to keep society running. I call it trickle-down epidemiology. It’s a kind of classist approach to infectious disease control.

What we learned is you can’t only protect the rich and then have a good result for everybody.

RF: This one size fits all approach destroys much more than it does good, for the people who should be protected.

JB: It does. The precautionary principle is based on not knowing how deadly the disease is, let’s assume the worst, and that allows us to decide how to respond. At first that seemed reasonable. But you can’t then turn around and assume that your interventions are also low-cost or low-harm. You have to have a clear eye for assessment of the harms of the interventions themselves.

The lockdowns have produced devastating harm to the health of populations worldwide. Especially the poor.

In developed countries there are enormous backlogs of people who skipped their cancer screening. Women are showing up with later stage breast cancer than they would have if we’d caught it last year. Men and women are showing up with later stage colon cancer. The psychological harm is absolutely catastrophic. In June last year CDC ran a study that found one in four young people aged between 18-24, seriously considered suicide. Reported suicide rates haven’t changed but there’s a catastrophic rise in deaths from drug abuse which we called deaths of despair in the last recession.

These are not harms that go away immediately. They will take concerted effort to address. In the UK there’s an enormous backlog of elective surgeries. Including heart operations. That’s the developed world. The health consequences have been and will continue to be catastrophic for quite a while with these lockdowns.

In the developing world though, it’s orders of magnitude worse. We have a globalised system of economics that essentially over the last 30-40 years, whatever you want to say about it, it lifted a billion people out of poverty. This is because poor countries reorganised their local economies to fit in with the global commerce. It worked in some sense. It produced all kinds of inequalities and had all kinds of problems, but it did lift a billion people out of poverty.

Overnight, with the lockdowns, those promises that we made to developing countries, we just broke. Predictably, 100 million people have been thrown into dire poverty with less than $3 a day of income. Eighty million people, according to the UN, have been thrown into dire food insecurity. Hundreds of thousands of children in South Asia are dead from hunger as a consequence of the lockdowns and the economic dislocation of them.

In the early days of the epidemic it was said, “we shouldn’t trade economics for health”. But that was immoral. Economics for the poor around the world is health. Is life. The whole discourse has been dominated by a very narrow group of people. Virologists. Epidemiologists. Who do not actually have the expertise to reorder society the way they think they do. They’re not actually protecting society. There’s much more to health than one virus. To pretend like that’s the case for two years has been and will continue to be a catastrophic disaster.

VF: In a situation like this with a new virus, you would do everything you can to understand the situation. You would do a lot of autopsies to get a picture of what is really going on but that has not happened. In fact autopsies were forbidden, or strictly discouraged. Better conclusions would have been possible if this was done. So this one-size-fits-all approach seems very lopsided. This makes me very uneasy.

RF: Was it an accident? We get a feeling after listening to all these experts, that this is an agenda being rolled out.

JB: It’s not my expertise to comment on that, but there is an excellent article from the National Academy of Sciences, on the issue of why governments worldwide adopted this approach when the pandemic plans didn’t call for it. The basic idea was policy copy. People saw China and it looked like their lockdowns worked in Jan-Feb 2020. Then they looked at Italy and it was a catastrophic disaster. They all thought well China’s approach worked and Italy’s didn’t. For politicians, a disease spreading, you turn to people with expertise in viruses and diseases spreading. Epidemiologists and Virologists. But they are very narrowly trained. Politicians are going to get blamed if bad things happen, so they need some excuse, something to say that they followed the science. Many, or most of them, don’t have the expertise to decide. So they follow the group of experts saying, lockdown worked here, it didn’t work there, and if they push back and it fails, then their career is over. If they don’t push back, they have an excuse, that they followed what the experts told them.

VF: But others said this was not the right way to go. But this conversation was turned down with very nasty comments. Maybe in the beginning, you go with the seemingly safe approach, but later on a closer analysis should happen.

JB: It was a devastatingly nasty environment for scientists. I was senior author on the Santa Clara Seroprevalence Study. The attacks on it were in the press. In April 2020 we found that 2.8% of people in Santa Clara had antibodies. In LA County we found 4%. That should have led to a conversation about this disease being already so far along that it’s not possible to get down to zero. John Ioannidis wrote an article saying we don’t know how widespread it is. Prominent scientists like Wolfgang Wodarg and John Ioannidis were shouted down as if they didn’t have expertise. By then, catastrophic mistakes had already been made. Once you follow down this line, to lock the whole world down, you’ve already caused an incredible amount of damage. You don’t see them because you are such a narrow minded scientist, so you just dig in. And of course you have to marginalise all the other prominent people who disagree with you as otherwise you can’t get your way and someone might conclude you have done something terribly wrong. That is ultimately going to be the judgement of history on Anthony Fauci’s tenure. This decision to lockdown the USA was a catastrophic error.

There is a charity in the UK I work closely with, called Collateral Global. We have commissioned a number of studies to measure some of these lockdown harms. Carl Henegan and Sunetra Gupta are working with us. It’s not like you can hide these consequences, they are such catastrophic events that have harmed so many people.

The debate will be that it would have happened anyway, with or without lockdown. That is nonsense.

I’ll give you one example. In California for almost 18 months public school kids were more or less locked out of school. In Sweden school was open without restriction. I would never have voluntarily kept my kids out of school. Never. It was a crazy, useless tactic, brought out of panic. Kids are not super spreaders, we knew that early on. Children are very inefficient spreaders. Many parts of Europe kept their schools open. But not California. These decisions were made by government to force people to alter what they did. They also panicked the population. This is an enormous violation of public trust. Creating panic creates bad decisions and the only reason for it was so that the policy makers could get their way.

There has to be a counter-reaction. I think we are starting to see a counter-reaction, by the way. Early on governors like De Santis in Florida and a few others in the USA pushed back. And now we are seeing the people who have been really harmed by this, are starting to vote out the people that caused it. In Virginia, the Democrat candidate was a very strong proponent of school closures and lockdowns, and got voted out.

VF: It is not only the lockdown harm, but now the vaccination problem and harms. The ideas of mandatory vaccination when you cannot even decide freely if you want to take part in the experiment or not. More and more problematic decisions are being taken. We don’t know what further they have up their sleeve to continue with this wrong narrative instead of starting a scientific discussion.

JB: I have studied vaccines and worked on vaccine safety with the FDA for a while. It takes quite a while to develop, test and then deploy a vaccine. In March 2020 I saw President Trump’s decision to do the Operation Warp Speed investment, with the idea that we can get a vaccine very quickly. I thought it was unlikely to succeed, and seemed an extraordinary bet. It was a bet that prolonged lockdown, as we were told to just lockdown until the vaccine arrives. The vaccines arrived and I was happy to see them, and I still am, for people facing a high risk of severe disease or death from Covid, it’s good. If you are mitigating a high risk then you’re willing to put up with a little more uncertainty. It’s always the case that medicine has side effects and you balance the effects with benefits. Using the vaccines to mitigate the risk of severe disease, especially for older people, is a good thing.

As you get closer to young people who face a lower risk then the balance of benefit gets closer, so you’re willing to put up with less side effects and uncertainty when mitigating a low risk, for instance with children. For me, it’s an individual clinical choice and you have these conversations with your doctor.

A lot of the people pushing for vaccines think of it as a public benefit. That is true for many vaccines. If I get my children vaccinated with the DTP vaccine, they’re not going to get the disease and they’re not going to spread it to others [actually Dr Christina Parkes disagrees with this statement!]. Many people thought this vaccine would be like that also. It is not.

This vaccine, after several months, has minimal protection against getting infected. I still think that it protects you against severe disease at 5, 6, 7 months. But at 5, 6, 7 months, it no longer protects you against infection. For example I got the vaccine in April 2021 and I got Covid in August 2021.

WW: do you know any other vaccine that has the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) which is about 100, like these vaccines. This is such a high number to avoid one case.

JB: It’s a question of what context the vaccines are used. Like, Diphtheria is very rare in the USA and you’re vaccinating large number of kids against Diphtheria but you’re not really preventing many cases because the vaccine is so prevalent. If you were vaccinating in an area where the disease was more prevalent, your NNT number would be much lower. For old people with Covid vaccines, you’re mitigating against high risk so I can give the vaccine to less old people and protect much more.

RF: It is an individual choice as this is the most important point about these vaccines, they don’t provide immunity. They protect against severe cases of covid but we’re not even sure if that is true given the numbers we are seeing from Israel and teh UK where 85% or more of those hospitalised have been twice vaccinated. Even Dr Robert Malone, who developed mRNA technologies, has become outraged, he says this is a violation of all ethical medical principles.

JB: I am more convinced about the protection against severe disease. You can’t just look at the hospitalisation numbers of those who have had the vaccine, you have to look at the population at large, how many who got the vaccine were at risk of being hospitalised, and then look at the fraction of people who get hospitalised against the fraction of people who get the vaccine. Studies like that tend to find some longer lasting protection against hospitalisation risk and death. I’m fairly convinced by that. Those same studies are finding no or very little protection against infection after a few months.

WW: I think in Israel for instance, it’s necessary to distinguish where the damage comes from in those who are hospitalised. Does it come from the spike protein in the vaccine or the spike protein from a natural virus? I don’t know whether there is somebody who has distinguished this?

JB: You can make a distinction with the antibody test, because if you are infected with the virus you produce antibodies to the nucleocapsid, and the spike protein, whereas if you have the vaccine then you only produce antibodies to the spike protein. I have seen some small studies looking at this, but none that are at scale. The antibodies are cheap so it would be easy to do, so it’s puzzling why we haven’t done these studies.

It’s important to understand the use of the vaccine. If I’m right then they are a personal protection against the disease. It’s not a tool for mass eradication of the disease. This disease cannot be eradicated. Dogs get infected with it, cats get infected with it. A study a few months ago by the USDA found that 40% of white tailed deer in Massachussetts have antibodies to the virus. Bats, I guess can get infected with it. It is not an eradicable disease. It meets none of the criteria for an eradicable disease.

The vaccine, ironically where the WHO changed its definition of herd immunity in response to the Great Barrington Declaration, stating it’s just vaccine-mediated herd immunity. If this vaccine doesn’t stop the disease then it doesn’t contribute all that much to herd immunity.

RF: This is the second time they changed the definition of an important word in terms of pandemics. The first time was in 2009 when they newly-defined what a pandemic is. Before that there were three required elements: a disease that spreads worldwide, with many serious cases of illness, and many deaths. Then they changed it to a disease that spreads worldwide. Which ultimately made it possible to make any common flu into a pandemic. And that is what started the Swine Flu. Then they changed, again overnight, the definition of herd immunity. It’s as if they are trying, in this context, to have us believe that the only way out, and the only way to achieve herd immunity, is to make 100% of people get the shots. It doesn’t seem to make sense.

JB: You don’t need 100% of people to get vaccinated for this disease to end. It will become endemic, it won’t go away. But it’s not that scarey right? Reinfections tend to be mild because of immune memory. Immune memory produces some protection even if you can get reinfected. Reinfection rates seem to be quite low and reinfection tends to be quite low. This will become like the other 4 circulating coronaviruses and everyone will be repeatedly exposed to this several times over their lifetime.

WW: WHO kept saying it is a new virus and they said it’s very important that we protect people against new viruses. And they just ignored that the virus is new every year and each year it’s a natural thing. We are very much used to new viruses and they are no problem for our immune system as they have so many epitopes that we recognise, and it’s almost the same as last year.

JB: Sunetra Gupta has this idea of a global virome. One idea is that by repeated exposures to different pathogens over a long period of time, we train our immune system and it makes us healthier. Globalisation has helped produce this. It’s one potential reason why life expectany has gone up.

WW: It’s an interesting hypothesis because by making a lockdown we isolate people in their home. For elderly people, for instance, they have no contact with their family anymore, and they lose their [immune system] training. So you don’t even protect them doing this.

JB: If she’s right we’ll have an immune deficit that we’ll pay consequences for in terms of worse health. Going back to the lockdowns. Why didn’t we do them in 2009? I think that Zoom is partly responsible for the lockdowns! Now the rich 30% of people won’t lose their jobs, but that wasn’t true in 2009.

RF: When you mentioned the study you and John Ioannidis did in April 2020, I heard about it on the news. I began to wonder …

JB: We sampled 3,000 people and we had 50 positives … We found about 2.8% with antibodies. In LA County we found about 4%. The infection fatality rate was about 0.2% but we didn’t study anyone in care homes.

VF: Also with the lockdowns, extra care taking measures for the risk group, to my understanding of freedom of choice it would also have been important to let these people choose to see their relatives, and deciding if they wanted to take the risk. It was very brutal what we saw here, locking these people in and they died without seeing their kids anymore before they died. It was terrible for those deceased but also the psychological wellbeing of relatives who couldn’t say goodbye.

JB: What we did to older people was cruel. There is an enormous increase in deaths among people with dementia. Those are loneliness deaths. Locking you away without paying attention to what you value. I’m a big proponent of focused protection, which to me means providing resources to vulnerable people. I wouldn’t stop them from doing what they value. When I am 80 and I have grandkids, I will still have Christmas with my family. I’d rather that, than live to 81 without another Christmas. But that’s my choice.

RF: Those states who didn’t have the anti-corona measures, no lockdown, no social distancing, no mask mandates, didn’t fare any worse than those that did. The best example is North Dakota and South Dakota, neighbouring states. In SD they didn’t do anything and they didn’t do any worse than ND. We also looked at the Amish people in Pennsylvania, who are totally disconnected from the modern world but still leading very worthwhile lives. They have no electricity and don’t watch mainstream news. They said let the virus take its course. They had no lockdowns or social distancing, as they said when you are sick you need to have people touch you, hug you. And what happened there is that in May 2020 the whole thing was over, without many people dying. It was just a regular flu season. The same thing was true for the Orthodox Jews in Israel. So it shows these measures were a catstrophic mistake.

JB: If you compare the age adjusted death rates in Florida with the age adjusted death rates in California, you have to do age adjustment because the risk rate is by age, it’s almost identical throughout the pandemic. Yet Florida has had full in-person school for all its kids, it’s had no closures of churches or businesses, and only a limited fraction of the counties imposed masks. Whereas California has missed schooling, closed businesses, mask mandates, you name it and now they’re talking about mandating the vaccine for five to eleven year old kids in San Francisco.

It’s impossible to escape what the data shows. The lockdowns did not achieve their stated goal, which is to protect people from Covid. In fact what it did achieve was almost entirely negative. Worse psychological and physical health, devastated economies for which we are going to be paying for a very long time.

RF: Yes. The worst is yet to come from these measures. It’s bizarre. There were very early warnings, not just from your university, but even from the UN. Some very prominent people who work at the UN pointed this out very early on. They said that the only thing the lockdowns are going to do is make poor people even poorer, and make a lot of people starve. And that’s precisely what has happened.

JB: Yes, that’s exactly what happened. People were raising red flags about this and yet we went ahead with it. I guess I was naiive about this, I thought that when people said they cared about the well being of poor people around the world, they meant it. And yet when fear came on us, we just forgot about it. It’s incredibly immoral. We create this globalised world where these interconnections sustain huge numbers of people, and overnight we decide to change it because we want to pull up the drawbridge to protect ourselves. The globalisation was just a thin sheen on who we really are and the virus exposed that.

RF: I think the tide is turning. There is going to be a counter-reaction. For parts of the population this has been going on for a while now. If someone had told me 18 months ago that this would be happening, with mask mandates, brand new vaccinations which don’t really seem to be vaccinations if you take a closer look, I would have told them to take their pills and go see a doctor. But in the meantime, speaking to so many experts from all fields of science, I have come to the conclusion that this has never been about health. There were serious mistakes made. But there are those who are behind this, and you’ll find out who if you follow the money, they didn’t make any mistakes, this was done on purpose. The destruction of the economy was on purpose. I wonder if the destruction of health is a mistake, or there is more behind it? We will take a deeper look into this.

JB: We have to do a real autopsy of what happened … What I’m afraid might happen is that the official evaluations will be led by people who are themselves architects of the policy. We have to broaden the set of conflict of interest rules in those evaluations and include people who were dissidents in the evaluation in a serious way. Or else the public will not trust those evaluations.

WW: You have wonderful guidelines at Stanford about institutional corruption. I think it’s a very good approach.

JB: I am optimistic the pandemic will end, sooner or later. I don’t know if I’m optimistic about our ability to evaluate it. It’s critically important we evaluate it properly or else the same thing will happen again with the same catastrophic harm to the population at large. And I don’t think we should let this happen. Science itself didn’t work well during this pandemic I think. It shut down dissidents, it shut down people. It should not take bravery to speak up in science. Science failed, politics failed, medicine failed. We have to take that seriously. We don’t want a biosecurity state, that is organised around protection against a single infectious disease. I can see a future where we head down that path. I’m looking at Australia and New Zealand. How do they get out of that?

VF: The pandemic has ended but they still want to continue the laws against the pandemic. That’s very strange. It’s become a political continuation of power and expansion. It has to end. There has to be some serious evidence based approach.

WW: Two years ago this would be ridiculous. But now there are only a few people who start laughing.

Fangkong Fails

The whole world seems convinced by lockdown. Whenever virus “cases” go down everyone claps for lockdown. When they go up, it means someone somewhere has been “selfish” and “broken the rules”. Public health 101 teaches that blame, shame and stigma are not useful for disease control and highly damaging to individuals and society. Yet society is now pivoted in this way and everyone has embraced it.

If you’ve ever monitored respiratory viruses you know that they undulate up and down, and that the pattern in which they do so differs amongst different populations and at different points in time for multiple different reasons including differences between epidemic and endemic patterns. Viruses take no notice of even strict lockdown, as real world data over the past 18 months across locations now shows. With one exception: China. Infectious Disease Epidemiologists refer to an array of evidence that in fact, lockdown places the vulnerable “at the front of the bus” by ignoring the need for targeted protection based on risk stratification (which relates to disease, hospitalisation and death, not to “cases”).

Epidemics stop without lockdown, as Sweden, Florida, Texas and many other locations show. So it is a completely bizarre situation to be told repeatedly that the Chinese Communist Party’s Fangkong response to public health is what works for viruses. Particularly when “diagnosis” is based on a test which is not fit for purpose and information on comorbidities is actively hidden from daily death counts being used to maintain fear and compliance.

Fangkong wasn’t being practised in Western Australia when this happened from May to July of 2019.

Fangkong has however, been in practice throughout this hot mess in 2020-21.

Meanwhile the Big Pharma-controlled, Big Media-promoted disaster of pseudoscientific public health response marches on. Many eminent public health experts speak out constantly but they are shouting into a headwind with little attention paid because of the powerful forces in control. The latest propaganda has been referral to the drug Ivermectin, which has been used successfully by expert clinicians, to treat probably millions of high risk Covid patients, as a “horse paste”.

Ivermectin may well be used as a horse paste, just as Penicillin is used on animals. Estimates are that 4 billion doses of Ivermectin have been used in humans over many decades, for treatment of parasitic diseases including scabies and worms.

The issue seems to be the active obstruction and/or refusal of physicians to prescribe it for Covid-19, leading to ill informed and afraid people purchasing the animal form in desperation and using it without prescriber guidance. Education by social media meme seems to be the most common way for messages to spread, and there must be thousands of anti-Ivermectin memes circulating to millions of people who never heard of the drug before and believe the first thing they read without attention to the full story.

Dr Pierre Kory from the Frontline Covid19 Critical Care Alliance shares evidence constantly that supports the use of Ivermectin in changing the trajectory of Covid related death. Nursing homes in New York state who had recently experienced scabies outbreaks treated with Ivermectin which is given to all staff and residents to control spread, reported very few Covid-19 related concerns whilst many without recent Ivermectin intervention experienced very high rates of disease and death.

As with all epidemiology, there may well be other population and environment related variables, however the evidence for Ivermectin seems strong even with the tiny numbers of death seen in the below graphs. Most significantly, this cheap repurposed drug threatens Big Pharma’s agenda to “vaccinate” the world repeatedly. Their problem is that ultimately actual science, which constantly questions itself, will win over failing pseudoscience which silences all questions.

Dr Peter McCullough’s twelve minute interview with an Australian television host on 30 August here, demonstrates competent public health being practiced with courage. He seems indestructible but attempts to silence him have nevertheless been aggressive.

On 19 August Dr Christina Parks testified to the Michigan Senate. She has a PhD in cellular and molecular biology “so I’m very well versed in the science of vaccination”. Her eight minute testimony described the way that “extremely complex science” is being simplified by media in order to remove our freedoms.

Dr Reiner Fuellmich addressed a New Zealand audience on Thursday night via Voices for Freedom, who are growing in number every week. The 1h25m recording can be viewed at this link. He provides a succinct description of the history of this pandemic and the corrupted forces leading the fray. He also speaks with hope that good will ultimately win.

Meanwhile, “public health” in the poor world no longer exists. Reports are that health centres and hospitals are now empty of patients except those mandated to present for Covid testing, Covid vaccination or Covid quarantine. Childhood vaccination programs are suspended along with many other life saving programs, swallowed by the Covid Industry. The impoverished all wear filthy face masks around their chin which they pull over their airways when required. They cannot access food and malnutrition rages. The destruction and death that this is causing really is, as so many have stated, a humanitarian crisis bigger than anything in the lifetime of anyone who is alive today. With threats to food supplies across the wealthy world now being spoken of, this may ultimately encourage a turn of public support for these crimes. Sickeningly being carried out and naiively supported in the name of public health!

Fangkong, already enforced in China and now rolling out across the West, described in a single tweet.

Corruption and Criminality

When the pandemic happened I realised there is something not right and not corresponding to the international health regulations. I thought this is very weird ….. The inconsistencies of everything they are doing ….. This has made health security a dictatorship, where Director-General [World Health Organisation] can decide on his own, to sell vaccines, to sell the PCR instead of all the documents that say you also need a clinical diagnosis” ~ Dr Astrid Stuckelberger

Dr. Astrid St├╝ckelberger (Health Scentist) relates her experience of working over several years at the WHO on training others to apply the most recent revision of the IHRs (International Health Regulations). At the 41st sitting of German Corona Committee (Feb 26th 2021) she presented evidence of irregularities she observed at the WHO prior to the declaration of the pandemic of 2020. Her work to train member countries in the use of these regulations, which are essential for proper handling of potential pandemic emergencies, was stopped without adequate explanation by senior leadership.

She goes on to describe the influence of Bill Gates in operations at World Health Organisation, including his attempts in 2017 for recognition as a sovereign member state on the WHO executive. (See Part 2).

Corruption and Criminality at Leadership Level of the WHO: Coronavirus Ausschuss.

On the same theme, another interview here with Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, speaking of the corruption inside World Health Organisation. He discusses two misuses of WHO by powerful pharmaceutical companies, being: 1) drug development; 2) “making panic” to sell drugs. “If you can use such an agency to rise fear in the people, then you can use it for any purpose … to paralyse people with fear. Say there is a big pandemic and then they will do anything you tell them“. This statement does not deny existence of a virus, but certainly raises into question the idea that a virus with an overly excessive fatality rate is circulating amongst us with universal susceptibility. The Wodarg interview is particularly hard hitting.

Every winter Coronaviruses comprise 10-15% of influenza-like-illness. Did this change in 2020? Where did influenza go in 2020? Is “successful lockdown” what the countries with low death rates in this map have in common? Is “ineffective lockdown” what the countries with high death rates have in common? Do we need to be so afraid that we postpone life for a year and counting? Asking questions about this would be true public health in action. Not merely believing blindly, what appears to be true through a global politico-media consensus driven by powerful profiteering private corporations.

Pandemic Patterns

On December 10, 2020, Dr Clare Craig, Diagnostic Pathologist, addressed a large gathering of concerned parents about Covid testing, T-Cell immunity and the testing of children and young people.

Below is the video of her opening address and my summary notes. Whilst she speaks from a specifically UK perspective, it is important to consider the relevance of what she has to say for other regions.

For example, why does Cambodia, with such close ties to China including direct flights to and from Wuhan since before and during the pandemic, not have a Covid epidemic? Recently after one symptomatic case was diagnosed, Cambodia have tested thousands of people through contact tracing networks, leading to a tiny number of asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic “cases”. Are they false positive cases and is this leading Cambodia into a false positive pseudo-epidemic?

Why do New Zealand and Australia not have the same pandemic patterns as other western countries who also locked down, some far more severely? Epidemiology is more likely to provide a range of realistic explanations to these questions than the simplistic conclusion of lockdown working and human behaviours being either praised or stigmatised and blamed. I find it difficult to believe that politics has any significant role to play in pandemic outcomes.

Dr Clare Craig speaking on 10 December 2020

  • Clare Craig is an expert in diagnostic testing.
  • Testing can go wrong in two ways: 1) missing a diagnosis and 2) diagnosing something that is not there.
  • In Spring the UK experienced a pandemic of a new virus that killed people, including young otherwise healthy people.
  • In Summer the UK had an odd lull, with a constant trickle of cases and deaths, which rang alarm bells to her that a constant, low percentage of test results were coming back as positive when there was no disease.
  • She began investigating the data and was able to make some interesting comparisons between the people dying in Spring against those reported to be dying in Summer.
  • Spring Covid had specific characteristics including: it killed more men than women, more ethnic minorities than white people, 6% of people admitted to hospital with Covid died (a very high mortality rate).
  • In Summer these features stopped, and those dying were 50:50 male:female, there was no ethnic difference, and the mortality rate was no different to usual. She concludes from this that in fact there was no Covid occurring in the UK during Summer. [This is in keeping with the knowledge that it is a seasonal respiratory virus].
  • In Autumn the UK had introduced symptom trackers where people could enter symptoms into an online app. These trackers started to show a rise in symptoms. NHS data of phone calls also tracked Covid symptoms which were entered into the system as actual Covid. These symptoms data points matched a rise in the number of PCR positives, looking as though Covid was returning.
  • By mid-September the symptom tracking data peaked and fell, and by the end of September the second wave of symptoms had passed. At the same time however, the PCR positive results continued to rise.
  • New viruses don’t disappear completely. After a Spring pandemic, it is expected that small outbreaks will occur every winter, as with all seasonal viruses. However, once the pandemic phase is over the virus no longer spreads in the epidemic way which occurred in Spring. This means the risk to society is over.
  • Given this fact, then why have the UK seen a continued rise in PCR positive cases when the symptoms are not rising?
  • PCR tests are a particular culprit of a situation that can happen, called a false positive pseudo-epidemic. The mirage of an epidemic can be created from the results of PCR testing. Cases are largely not real. There has obviously been some Covid in Autumn, largely in areas of the North West who were not badly hit during the Spring pandemic.
  • Many other places without recurrent Covid are experiencing rises in cases, but the timing does not match, death rates don’t match, and there is clear evidence that mislabelling of deaths is occurring. In reality, diagnoses of death are based on evidence and history collated with testing and a decision is made as the most likely cause of death. With a faulty test, this can obscure the real cause of death. This is a genuine mistake.
  • False positive pseudo-epidemics create a convincing delusion. They have never occurred on the scale that is occurrring today, but when they happen, everyone believes the delusion.
  • Evidence from other tests backs up the theory that the UK is currently experiencing a false positive pseudo-epidemic. The first is antibody testing which shows who has had the disease (not who is immune). The UK has been conducting random antibody testing weekly and since May these results have flatlined, supporting the theory that there is no Covid occurring. Secondly is a test which looks for the whole virus (rather than a piece of virus as with PCR testing). These tests are only detecting tiny numbers of Covid which likely mainly represent the false positive rate for these tests.
  • A lot of testing is being conducted in universities across the UK and whilst there is a handful of positive cases, there is no symptomatic Covid, suggesting that the cases are all false positive results (confirmed by the confirmatory testing conducted by Cambridge University which I shared yesterday). Based on these false positive results however, students are going to be kept at university in isolation over the Christsmas holidays.
  • There is a very unusual situation occurring, where people who absolutely understand the false positive problem are refusing to talk about it and “have become false positive deniers”. The scale of this false positive pseudo-epidemic is major but it can be solved by confirmatory testing using an alternative test. This is not being done.
  • Antibody testing conducted in UK has shown that around 7% of the population has antibodies against the Covid spike protein. This has been incorrectly interpreted as meaning that only 7% of people are immune to Covid. However, by detecting antibodies specific to one viral protein, it shows who has had Covid, but not who is immune. This is because the virus is made up of many other proteins which our bodies produce other antibodies against, which this specific antibody testing does not detect.
  • Public Health England have conducted a different type of testing, in a small sample of people, looking for the full range of antibodies against Covid. This includes antibodies against parts of the virus which are shared with other Coronaviruses, including common cold Coronaviruses which many of us have prior exposure to. In this study over half of the people tested, who had never had Covid, had various protective antibodies. This is backed up by other studies looking at other parts of the immune system, including T-cells.
  • The conclusive evidence that around 50% of the UK population are already immune to Covid comes from contact tracing, in which a maximum of half of all household contacts contracted the disease from an infectious household member.
  • Adding 50% of people with prior immunity to 7% of people with Covid spike protein antibodies shows that around 60% of the UK population are immune. Patrick Vallance, the UK Chief Scientific Advisor has apparently said from the outset that the herd immunity threshold for Covid is expected to be around 60%.

The pandemic is over. What we are dealing with now is endemic Covid, which will break out in little pockets, and that we will have every winter, but that there is no need anymore, for us to be behaving differently.

Questions arising from this UK evidence include, do Australia and New Zealand already have herd immunity? Could this somehow relate to our much stronger ties with parts of Asia who also appear to have some sort of herd immunity? Have our governments conducted any testing as has been done in the UK, to investigate these possibilities? Are the human control measures we have implemented really the reason that we are not seeing Covid now? Were we ever going to experience this pandemic in the same way that Europe and North America experienced it?

Without asking questions, it seems that we get a cultish belief system instead of generating any true understanding of the situation. Given the colossal harms of lockdown measures, this surely does more harm than good?

Disease Detecting

As of today, the Coronavirus pandemic in the UK seems out of control. Everyone is talking about it. Nationwide lockdowns have been imposed, mass testing of the city of Liverpool by the military is underway, anti-lockdown protests are breaking out and there are hundreds of Covid-diagnosed deaths everyday. If you Google “Coronavirus UK” this graph appears on your screen, showing tens of thousands more cases now than there were in the pandemic peak back in April to May.

It seems horrific and people are afraid. It doesn’t seem to follow the usual bell curve pattern of a pandemic, immediately raising questions. The role of public health disease surveillance and outbreak control is to investigate diseases of public health concern and determine their patterns, including who might become unwell or die and why, and how these risks might be minimised. We become disease detectives, and as such we need to remain questioning and inquisitive. When the media and politicians take over, pressure mounts to fall in line with a given narrative which is incredibly damaging to public health activities, as has been shown on a large scale through 2020.

When you go to the Office of National Statistics and read the Public Health England All Cause Mortality Surveillance Report for Week 46 (last week), you find the below graph.

Deaths persistently undulate with a rise in winter related to seasonal respiratory viruses, of which there is usually a dominant influenza strain. In 2016-2017 the dominant strain was Influenza A H3N2. In 2017-2018 there were two, being Influenza B and Influenza A H3N2. In 2018-2019 the two dominant strains were the Influenza A H1N1 2009 pandemic strain and Influenza A H3N2. The dominant strains in 2019-2020 were Influenza A H3N2 and SARS-CoV-2. The sharp peak in April of 2020 represents the Covid-19 pandemic deaths which have since come down with some small peaks and troughs, a normal transmission pattern as viruses encounter pockets of vulnerable populations.

Professor Gabriela Gomes, biomathematician at Strathclyde University who specialises in epidemiology, infectious disease spread and herd immunity, states “Typically we cross the herd immunity threshold to seasonal viruses up and down every year. Not only because R0 is seasonal but also waning immunity and birth of susceptibles. The challenge is to cross it for the first time. After that it becomes normal“. This graph strongly suggests that Covid-19 has crossed the herd immunity threshold in the UK and has become a seasonal endemic virus.

Since April 2020 none of the peaks have been as high as those seen in 2016-2017 or 2017-2018, so they are not out of the ordinary. So what explains the enormous rate of diagnosed Covid-19 cases when there are no corresponding pandemic-level deaths?

Dr Claire Craig is a consultant pathologist who has worked for the National Health Service and has studied this data in detail. She discusses it extensively including during a 55 minute podcast with Alex McCarron and the below nine minute TalkRadio interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer.

It is complicated, but Dr Craig has identified flaws in the PCR tests being used to diagnose Covid-19 which seems to be creating a corruption of data. They are flaws well known to occur in Epidemiology including the risk of a high number of false positive results occurring when excessive testing is undertaken in populations with low rates of disease.

She also discusses the testing issues that can occur in laboratories when workloads are excessive and urgent. Tests have to be manufactured and available with a quick turnover at the beginning of any epidemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, manufacturer checks were (justifiably) compromised in order to make the tests available as soon as possible.

Laboratories have three aspects to their work, but can only ever employ two of them at a time: quality (of the test); volume (of tests done); and speed (at which test results are made available). In the initial stages of a pandemic, as seen in the UK in April, speed and volume are required, making test quality less of a priority. This ensures during the emergent pandemic stage, that testing provides enough information to get a clear picture of what is going on quickly for a timely public health response.

The risks associated with prioritising volume and speed are that test quality is compromised. Dr Craig describes the situation in laboratories which quickly scaled up their testing capacity to 50,000 per day across the UK by May 2020 and then up to 200,000 per day now, with very few extra resources, placing a large strain on laboratory services.

Epidemiology 101 for pathologists during epidemic investigations, is that when you reach peak deaths, you switch strategy from high volume, fast and sensitive testing (meaning every possible case will be detected), to quality testing which is specific (meaning the results are more accurate). The only way to get quality results is to compromise either volume of daily tests, or the speed at which the results can become available. The early strategy of testing high volumes at great speed has never been scaled down in order to improve the quality of the tests according to Dr Craig.

Public Health Scotland release information about their Covid testing which includes the number of daily positive results, daily negative results and total number of tests performed. Investigation of this data found that the percentage of positive tests is twice as high on weekends than it is on Mondays. This is clearly nothing to do with the virus, and relates directly to the extraordinary pressure that laboratories are under. Dr Craig describes weekends as short staffed, busy and stressful, and outlines the ease with which tiny traces of viral contamination can occur in negative specimens in this high stress environment.

This leads to her argument that it is possible that currently the UK could be experiencing a pseudo-epidemic of false positive tests. She refers to the Pertussis pseudo-epidemic that occurred in Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, New Hampshire USA, where 142 people were diagnosed with Pertussis (whooping cough) in 2006. 1,000 staff were quarantined and thousands received antibiotics and vaccines. When confirmatory tests were done, it was found that all 142 “cases” were in fact not infected at all. Mike Hearn wrote about this in his blog posts: Pseudo-epidemics and Pseudo-epidemics Part II.

As Dr Craig points out, living through a pseudo-epidemic, everyone believes there is an epidemic because the data looks like an epidemic. But some of the data can be studied to help figure it out, as she has done. It is more complicated than this, and her interview with Alex McCarron explains in further detail, why she feels a cause for concern on this.

Interestingly, mass testing in Liverpool UK which commenced last week amidst a storm of controversy has used a different type of test than the PCR which is being used globally to “diagnose” Covid-19, often in people with no symptoms or vague and mild symptoms. The military in Liverpool are using lateral flow tests, a point of care rapid test which provides results within 20 minutes and doesn’t require specimens to be sent to the laboratory (they work much like a pregnancy test). This test detects virus protein which will only be detected if actual virus is present, unlike PCR testing which can detect scraps of viral genetic material. Lateral flow testing of many thousands in Liverpool city has shown a much smaller infection rate, about 1 person in every 200, than the rates being suggested via PCR testing.

Dr Craig argues that whilst it may not be the case that a pseudo-epidemic is at play here, it is also a possibility which needs to be excluded. She states that the UK epidemic occurred across their population before and then during the first lockdown, and that the virus is now transmitting slowly through a largely immune population. According to Dr Craig, determining whether a pseudo-epidemic is now at play can be done by re-testing hospitalised patients diagnosed as Covid positive on PCR tests, using the lateral flow test. Are these sick hospitalised patients really suffering and dying from Covid? It seems an important question given the doubts raised.

It is all much more complicated than this and I am unsure I’ve done the topic justice, but it was worth writing about because it’s an amazing phenomenon which needs further investigation and attention for a fearful public living through another devastating lockdown. Instead however, news outlets have largely dismissed it.

Regarding the issue of asymptomatic spread, which has driven the incredibly divisive issue of whether or not general public wearing masks is useful, Dr Craig states that there are two schools of thought, being 1: asymtpomatic people cannot transmit (which makes biological sense and has been standard knowledge until 2020); 2: asymptomatic transmission is a serious problem. Dr Craig states that when you look at the literature supporting the second school of thought, every paper was published in China. She suggests, with good reason, that there should be some skepticism about this when all the other literature contradicts it.

In conclusion, the UK are currently experiencing a problem with false positive Covid test results, which can be fixed by confirmatory testing of unwell people using an accurate lateral flow test or by reducing the volume of testing required by laboratories so that they may improve the quality of their results. At the moment, the numbers which are not real are overshadowing the numbers that are real.

Additionally, Dr Michael Yeadon, a doctor of respiratory pharmacology, has described the same concerns. He has also noted that when MPs in the House of Commons voted on the latest lockdown, they were not told that ICU occupancy was at 79% (normal for this time of year in UK); medical oxygen usage was at normal rates; and that there was no abnormal spike in excess deaths. He takes it one step further, stating that many of the UK’s 620,000 expected annual deaths are being incorrectly coded as Covid-19.

Dr Clare Craig interview on talkRADIO 13 November 2020.