Aletho News


Asymptomatic COVID spread used to shut down the economy and close schools was false

By Paul Elias Alexander, PhD | Trial Site News | June 14, 2021

There was no credibility to asymptomatic spread in COVID-19 as a key driver of the pandemic nor even as a driver of minimal infection. We knew early on that this was rare, if at all an issue, in the transmission of COVID virus. Yet this falsehood was propagated by the medical media cartel and Task Forces globally despite having no evidence that it was credible. The US Pandemic Task Force propagated this falsehood to the extent that it was a major driver of the pandemic and used it to shutter the economy and lives. We have looked at the evidence gathered across the last 15 to 16 months and can safely say this was a false narrative that hurt the US immensely. This was such a significant aspect of the pandemic policy decisions, that it could not be based on supposition, speculation, or assumptions. It could not be based on whimsy. I am afraid however, that it was, and this had catastrophic consequences. There was no strong data or any evidence to underpin this and even if this was assumed for several weeks, and even if we took a more cautious approach, we used this false narrative in place to keep draconian and punitive lockdown restrictions in place for too long that had no basis. Lives were lost as a result! For me to buy this, I need to see the evidence and data and there is none! The reality is that there is no verifiable evidence that persons have developed COVID-19 based on asymptomatic spread, evidence that is credible. You must torture the data or infections to find one and still, it is plagued with the very questionable RT-PCR results.

You just cannot discuss this asymptomatic issue without factoring in the very flawed RT-PCR test with its 97% false positives at cycle counts of 35 and above. This RT-PCR disastrous test cannot be omitted for it was part of the ‘asymptomatic’ deception. I cannot be generous in my language anymore. This was not a falsehood; it was meant to deceive!

As such, we are about to debunk ‘asymptomatic spread’ fully on the heels of the catastrophic masking, lockdowns, and school closure polices that visited crushing harms on society. That the US Pandemic Task Force and these absurd, illogical, irrational, unscientific medical experts could use this falsehood and shut the society down and cost so much destruction is a scandal, shameful, and unforgiveable. There was no basis to the ‘asymptomatic spread’ and the falsehood should have been stopped soon after it became clear that this was misleading and had no basis. It cost thousands of lives! More lives lost and instead of protecting the vulnerable, they allowed them to die! Our precious elderly.

They did not try to and failed to protect public health, all these crazy lockdown insane lunatics! That’s what they are, lunatics! These bureaucrats and technocrats, this ruling elite. Flat wrong on everything COVID, yet run around extolling each other, patting each other on the back. For what? The destruction they caused? We begged them to secure the elderly and high-risk strongly but they did not and did not stop the lockdowns. They pretended there were no harms to their lockdowns. It was deliberate, a perverse cruelty on populations. Just look at the declining health due to the isolation from the lockdowns (the mental health costs, the dementia), the inactivity, the loss of education due to school closures, lost medical care, loss of jobs/employment, and income. “Some of these costs, sadly, remain ahead of us, including deaths from delays in cancer screening and treatment, rising opioid overdose, and harms to the life expectancy of today’s children due to lost schooling” (Collateral Global). Alarmingly, we see how COVID wreaks havoc differentially due to baseline risks that are often exaggerated in the underprivileged, but also in the underprivileged in terms of the harms and effects of the lockdowns. For example, “while breast cancer screening in Washington state fell by 50% for women overall, the drop was even more precipitous among minorities”.

Before we lay bare this ‘asymptomatic’ fraud, let us show just how duplicitous these public health agencies can be and how many lies they (and their leaders) spew in an attempt to deceive and confuse the public. In this case to drive fear in parents so as to push them to vaccinate their children. On Friday, the CDC put out a statement (based on their June 11th 2021 MMWR report) that there is a troubling rise in teens being hospitalized for COVID-19. The first fact that jumps out at us is that there were 0 (zero) deaths. CDC stated that adolescent hospitalization rates increased during March and April 2021 after decreases in January and February 2021. This message went viral in the media 24/7. This misinformation and clear effort to lie to the public was couched as ‘troubling rise’. But the lie was that there was a rise in March and April but then a decrease in May back to the level it was at the close of February 2021.

The CDC and its Director Walensky had clear knowledge that the hospitalization rate had decreased but they cherry picked a portion of the graph and data (the upside of the graph) and presented that without the downside portion that shows the decline. What hubris and deceit by Walensky! For she knew she was cherry-picking the data because across all age-groups, hospitalizations had declined during the prior 6 to 8 weeks. She knew this. “Allen says the latest data from May showed that hospitalization rates declined to 0.6 on May 29”. The real atrocity in this reporting by the CDC is that they did not include the data from May 2021. This was a pure effort to mislead the public because the same data used in the report showed a significant decline in the month following the slight increase”. So, the CDC took data that showed an increase in April 2021 and now reports it in June as if the May data of the clear decline does not exist. Just the April data and also, why is it now being reported? How incredibly duplicitous and such arrogance to think the American people are that stupid that they cannot see the decline in May?

Dr. Walensky was actually mis-reporting (deliberately) CDC’s own data. Why? Is this the first time a CDC MMWR report was basically junk pseudo-science? Based on falsehoods? This MMWR report was based on a population-based surveillance system of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19–associated hospitalizations in 99 counties across 14 states, covering approximately 10% of the U.S. population. Horowitz of Blazemedia was beside himself as he discussed this duplicity by the CDC and rightly so. Dr. Walensky stated she was para ‘deeply concerned by the rise’. Yet she knew she was being deceitful, in plain view, understanding that the media cartel would gobble the erroneous tripe up and the public would be too lazy to do the reading just a bit further down in the MMWR to understand the mis-information. “It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points-an old trick they’ve used with mask studies”. Or is it that Dr. Walensky cannot read the science or understand the data or graphs? Or those reporting to her? They (Dr. Walensky) made this type of deceitful error and omission when they reported and misled on the risk of outdoors transmission (< 1% but claiming it is more like 10%), among many others. Same issues with the summer camp rules and spread after vaccination, with flips and flops between Walensky and Fauci. Someone was or is lying, who?

Makary of Johns Hopkins stated para “that the CDC did not report the key issues in that report. No child died, and the CDC should have said this. This is the great news! The hospitalization rate was lower for COVID than it was for influenza. The CDC should have said this also as the headline. What about the heart swelling complications on teens due to the vaccine… one of the failures of the CDC is their ignoring of natural immunity and this insane rush to mass vaccinate people already immune… we are seeing another set of talking points on the Delta variant scare”.

CDC knew the number was coming down for months but misled in their report when they knew it was 20 hospitalizations per day of about 25 million teens, so a rate of approximately 0.00008%. This was to drive panic about a troubling rise in teen hospitalizations and the very small number was going down, and not up. They pick only one piece of data and this was terrible so as to exploit the fears of parents. This was to drive vaccinations. How low has the CDC fallen and how come they have absolutely no common sense! We set the table for this op-ed with that falsehood by the CDC on rising teen hospitalizations. This is how the last 16 months has been with CDC’s reporting. Late and false! Always one year behind the science. Always misleading. Politicized.

Back to the ‘asymptomatic spread’. This duplicitous ‘asymptomatic’ assertion hobbled and basically doomed the pandemic response from the start, for all of the societal shutdowns and school closures revolved around this falsehood. Dr. Anthony Fauci can be credited with perhaps the greatest falsehood to the American population and the then President Trump. He even has still carried this misleading and duplicitous narrative on asymptomatic spread into current [proclaimed] President Biden’s administration.

Fauci stated the following as he advocated and moved to shut society down: “historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all history of respiratory viruses of any typeasymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers”. This clear statement by Fauci is really the [last] nail devastating his handling of this pandemic. What a disaster he has been and how many thousands of lives he has cost with his statements that have all turned out to be wrong. Recently uncovered e-mails  show that Fauci stated that “most transmissions” of virus “occur from someone who is symptomatic” and “not asymptomatic”. But Fauci publicly stated at the Task Force podium that asymptomatic spread is “not rare” but is in fact common and why the nation had to be shut down.

I am so ashamed to be a scientist today and really do not wish to belong in this perverse group of ‘fallen’ nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and specious academics. They are (have been) absurd and actually very harmful by the policy positions they advocated. I have bolded and underlined the critical words by Fauci for the reader as these stand out. Fauci was not supposing here as to asymptomatic spread, he was not speculating, he was declarative and definitive. He was firm! Does this make any sense though given what Fauci then did to society, after making this type of declaration? They did the opposite. They repeatedly came to the podium and misled the nation for they repeatedly told us that due to asymptomatic spread, we would have to wear masks, and socially distance, and close schools, and shut everything down.

These US Task Force experts and the so called ‘medical experts’ in the media knew it. They knew this was false, as there was no science to back this up. None. They knew they were misleading the public and were openly lying, while holding opposing positions behind the scenes. Dr. Fauci’s recent e-mail on asymptomatic spread being no issue and his public Task Force discussions on this early in the pandemic underscore how much deceit and duplicity were in his language to the American people. These people conspired and sold the nation(s) a lie, and in fact, many lies around COVID-19. Lies that cost lives of business owners who lost businesses, workers who lost jobs, and adults and children who lost hope and killed themselves. Not from COVID, but from the lockdowns and the crushing harms from them.

What also hobbled and irreparably damaged the US’s response out of the gate was the devastating lie that we were all at equal risk of severe illness and death if infected. This was a flat lie that has Johnny still today at 20 years old, and in perfect health cowering under his bed thinking he is at the same risk as granny at 85 who has 3 serious grave underlying medical conditions. These medical experts would come to the podium daily and make statements and demands and had no data or evidence to back it up. No credible data, and no media, no one asked them for any. We grew to know that they were empty suits, especially Fauci, just baseless statements but they cost many, many lives, tragically. They caused much suffering and the blame rests with them, the Task Force, for the President implemented their policies, not his policies. He got guidance and recommendations from them. It was their lockdowns, it was their school closures, it was their social distancing, it was their mask mandates.

We knew very early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and that your baseline risk was most prognostic for mortality, age and obesity being the principle ones along with renal disease and diabetes as well as heart disease. We knew this. We knew early on that a more focused ‘targeted’ approach was needed and not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach that was devastating. Like how we knew that recurrent infection (re-infection) was not real and also a lie. Are we sure that recurrent or re-infection is not credible? Well, you judge for yourself. We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if at all, and based on typically one or two instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection e.g. often easily explained by flawed PCR testing etc. (references 1234567891011121314151617181920212223). Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins wrote “reinfection is extremely rare and even when it does happen, the symptoms are very rare or [those individuals] are asymptomatic”. Importantly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently (May 10th 2021 Scientific brief, WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Natural_immunity/2021.1) alluded to what has been clear for many months (one year now), which is that people are very rarely re-infected. The WHO was very late but better late than never.

Like how we knew that the RT-PCR test was near 100% false positive and a flawed test as a diagnostic test and was damaging lives with the erroneous quarantines and closures when a positive test emerged. We knew that what mattered most was the number of hospitalizations, ICU bed use, and deaths, not the infections. An infection did not mean one was a ‘case’ of disease. And likely a false positive. We knew that a cycle count threshold (Ct) of 24 was the limit and everything above this was a PCR test that was likely false positive, picking up viral dust, fragments, old coronavirus, old recovered infection etc. We knew the CDC had set the Ct at 40 which contributed to the hundreds of thousands and millions of positive cases that were not positive and schools were closed and people quarantined for no reason. We knew that children were at near zero risk of acquiring the infection, spreading it, or getting ill from it, yet continued on frightening parents. The CDC, the teachers’ unions, and the television medical experts have spent the last 15 to 16 months lying and scaring parents needlessly and have been lying openly on risk to children. How else do I state it? They were delivering falsehoods and misleading facts to the public and these are flat lies.

Like how we knew that you do not vaccinate someone who has recovered from COVID-19 as they now have robust, durable, life-long immunity that is far more long-lasting, durable, robust, and complete (sterilizing) than any conferred by a vaccine immunity that confers only narrow ‘spike-specific’ immunity with only the spike epitopes for the immune system to look at, and not the surface of the virus and all the viral epitopes that our natural immunity will consider.

Like how we knew you never ever vaccinate during a pandemic for this drives the emergence of variants yet they did it anyway.

Like we knew that the variants will blow past the narrow vaccine induced immunity and principally the spike that you are injecting with today is long gone. What exists out there now is way different than the initial strain due to mutations on the spike.

Like how we knew that T-cell immunity was out there and represented a large portion of persons who were not candidates for vaccine and were already strongly immune to COVID e.g. had prior infection with other coronaviruses and common cold coronaviruses that confer ‘cross-protection’ cellular immunity via T-cell immunity etc. (Weiskopf GrifoniLe BertMateusTavukcuogluCassanitiDykemaEcheverríaBonifacius, Nelde, Ansari, Ma, Lineburg, Borena) (references 1234567891011121314). You judge for yourself if this makes sense.

Like how we knew that early outpatient treatment (references 1234) was very successful in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death (McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Tenenbaum, Kory, Smith, Bernstein, Fareed, Ladapo etc.) and that you do not give successful anti-virals late in the disease course for they will not work.

Like how we knew the research community was conducting studies ‘designed to fail’ to show that the anti-virals did not work. They were deceiving the public.

Like how we know that using a vaccine that has not undergone the right and proper safety testing and duration of testing, will result in adverse effects and deaths, as we are now seeing (CDC’s very own VAERS database). Anyone who says, no matter their position in government or any medical expert, that it is safe, is lying to you for they did not do the requisite long-term safety assessment in their studies. They are flat lying and this is dangerous and reckless for it is costing lives. And now they are coming for our children! We pray that the FDA staves them off, as the principle regulator. Our hope rests there.

Like how we knew that the ‘ZERO COVID’ view was ridiculous and impossible and not attainable, and was devastating to our societies. There is no way we could eliminate every infection/case as COVID is now endemic and all around us. ZERO was never possible and we knew it and an absurd intention and all it does is destroy the society by locking down to attain ZERO, you force the pathogen to mutate more infectiously and you will forever be going in circles. And you will have a destroyed society to emerge to. We knew this and particularly that we would likely have to learn to live with it as we do with seasonable influenza and common cold coronaviruses. We have never been able to get rid of every infection/case and the same here. But somehow the Task Force experts did not know this.

Like how we knew all that was needed in this pandemic was calm, some sensible leadership, no politicization, and simple enhanced hand-washing and isolation of only the symptomatic ill/sick persons. No isolation of asymptomatic persons, none. None in their homes or at the borders. We knew this. We knew all we needed to do was give early drug treatment and protect the elderly strongly and allow society to move on unfettered. We knew that population immunity would emerge, as we had no reason to think COVID operated any differently than other viruses etc. as to population immunity.

We also knew early on that the blue and cloth face masks were ineffective and utterly dangerous as used, with no clear benefit, and that mask mandates were a failure, all of them! We knew this. We also knew masks were actually dangerous and,  for children, so much so as to impact their social and emotional health and well-being. But we pretended and now masks are part of the daily wardrobe while we knew the medical harms that were accruing and being reported from mask use. We knew the social distance rule of 6 feet was made up, not based on credible science. Same as the 3 feet in school, courtesy of CDC. We know that mass testing of asymptomatic persons was nonsensical and dangerous, adding no benefit. Same as contact tracing etc. once the pathogen breached your shores. We knew this. We knew all of the lockdown measures would hollow out our societies and all of the steps taken, and that handwashing and isolation of ill persons were all that was needed. We knew that we had early outpatient therapeutics that were very effective in reducing hospitalization and death, but failed to use them.

What did we know about lockdowns and school closures and masks? What evidence accumulated and very early? Well, you judge for yourself. We found out clearly about the catastrophic harms (consequences) and failures of lockdowns (references 1, 2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758) and school closures (references 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142, 4344454647484950515253545556).

We even knew of the catastrophic harms due to mask use (references 123456789101112131415161718192021222324).

We also knew of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627, 2829303132333435) and knew of the failure of mask mandates (references 123456,78). All of this we knew early on and evidence kept accumulating. But the inept medical experts kept hardening the lockdowns and punishing the population needlessly. And lives were lost!

We quickly grew to know that every single mitigation step like lockdowns and school closures was a catastrophic failure and was harming the people, especially crushing harms on women and children, and particularly the poorer women and children (children of color). We knew! We knew that none, not one of the bureaucrats and technocrats and ‘caffe latte’ drinking ‘lap-top’ class elitist academics and scientists and Task Force advisors who called for and pushed the lockdowns and school closures would not suffer the burden like the poorer in society. Not one day did they miss a salary or mortgage or rent payment. They were ‘safe’ and it is quite easy for you to extoll and exact a burden on others once you are not subject to it. It became like a game, these lockdowns, indeed, it becomes a game. We knew we shifted the burden onto the poorer in society. But we did not care, we had uber, lap-tops, gardens to tend to, walks to take, naps to catch up on, Amazon to order from, and secured jobs that allowed us to ‘remote’ exist. The poorer had no such facility. But we did not care. We had pods, tutors, internet, lap-tops and the like for our kids. We did not care!

Yes, we knew all of this but were bamboozled and confused by the idiotic and absurd, specious statements by medical experts who for the life of me have been flat wrong on most everything COVID. Case in point, Dr. Fauci. Flat wrong. Makes no sense. But put a pin in that for a moment. Let me focus on asymptomatic spread of COVID virus, this being the core thesis of this op-ed.

What do we know as of today and knew in the spring of 2020 and certainly in the fall of 2020? What does the science say, the same science that these television medical experts and nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and uninformed Task Force and medical advisors failed to take into account due to their academic sloppiness and sheer politicization. They exhibited a depth of cognitive dissonance to anything that disagreed with their absurdities that they spewed at us daily, to a public who yearned for just honesty and the facts for their informed decision-making. They seem unable to read the science, or to understand the science, or ‘get’ the science, and are clearly blinded to the science.

The fact is that if you are having no symptoms, or if they are very mild, then this significantly reduces spread and actually, with no symptoms, there is no spread. This is where the media and the inept medical experts have confused the public. No one is arguing that you cannot be asymptomatic. Of course you can. We are arguing if you are asymptomatic, the mere fact you have no symptoms means you are not spreading the virus. This works for all pathogens so why is it different for SARS-CoV-2? “Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling”. We knew very early on that asymptomatic transmission was not a driver of COVID. This is not only my contention.

We are being emphatic in saying there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread. If there is, please provide us the evidence. Yet we had these incompetent medical experts on television talking and speculating about asymptomatic spread, supposing about it, yet giving us no evidence about it. We also recognize that one must be careful not to claim ‘zero’ as the evidence changes daily and rapidly and absence of documented evidence is also not a reason. It may just have not been studied yet or documented optimally. But we are confident enough based on the existing literature to also agree that ‘it is a dangerous assumption to believe that there is persuasive, scientific evidence of asymptomatic transmission’.

The basis for the societal lockdowns was that 40% to 50% of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 could potentially spread it due to being asymptomatic. “But fears that the virus may be spread to a significant degree by asymptomatic carriers soon led government leaders to issue broad and lengthy stay-at-home orders and mask mandates out of concerns that anyone could be a silent spreader”. However, the evidence in support of common asymptomatic spread remains largely non-existent and we argue, was overstated and potentially was made with no basis. We actually say that these Task Force members lied to the nation! We argue it was made to drive fear and compliance but was never credible. And just consider the harms from nearly one and a half years of testing and closures for a phenomenon that is not credible. Look at the financial costs and lives lost.

We want to focus on evidence to make our case, that we think validates our hypothesis that asymptomatic spread was a falsehood. We want to debunk it here and we argue that the study findings we share here can be extrapolated fully to examples of no asymptomatic (or very limited/rare) transmission. You judge for yourself.

A high-quality review study by Madewell published in JAMA sought to estimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. In addition, researchers sought to estimate the proportion of households with index cases that had any secondary transmission, and also compared the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate with that of other severe viruses and with that to close contacts for studies that reported the secondary attack rate for both close and household contacts. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77 758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment. “The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals”.

A study published in Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million persons. AIER’s Zucker responded this way “The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but not does drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000”.

One study in May 2020 examined the 455 contacts of one asymptomatic person. Researchers found that “all CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test”.

The World Health Organization (WHO) also made this claim that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.

Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year, and while one has to tease out the concept of no asymptomatic spread though I argue it is an easy argument to make, it clearly shows that children do not spread the virus.

Ludvigsson published a seminal paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million children that were followed in school in Sweden, it was reported that with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid and a few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. We include this study for it is seminal in showing that masks were never needed and children do not spread the virus or get sick or die from it. But importantly, if asymptomatic spread was so vast, and there were 2 million children, would there not be much more elevated numbers of infection reported?

A recent June 10th 2021 op-ed sheds more confirmatory light that asymptomatic spread was more a myth that a reality. Ballan and Tindall wrote “People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2… serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.

A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. They explain further that the myth was driven by a single case report of an asymptomatic woman from China who had spread the virus to approximately 16 contacts in Germany. “Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission”.

Ballan and Tindall further explain that “a person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen: i) the test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected), ii) the person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test), the person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms, and iv) the person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms”.

In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus, asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics.

Perhaps the clearest statement and we argue the most definitive one came from Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who stated in March 2020 (we outlined in more detail above): ‘In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person”. Fauci says clearly the driver of transmission is ‘always’ a symptomatic person. Fauci went on to dispute his own declaration by his admonitions on subsequent Task Force podium speech that asymptomatic spread was very serious and a key driver, and thus why we must close schools, wear masks, and lock down the society. We found out how devastatingly wrong that was as we lost businesses and lives, including of our children due to the lockdowns/closures.

Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist, and her colleague Dr Jonathan Engler have examined the research evidence behind the claim that Covid-19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals. They wrote “harmful lockdown policies and mass testing have been justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk. Given the harmful collateral effects of such policies, the precautionary principle should result in a very high evidential bar for asymptomatic transmission being set. However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful. A handful of questionable instances of spread have been massively amplified in the medical literature by repeatedly including them in meta-analyses that continue to be published, recycling the same evidence base.”

It is important to carefully distinguish purely asymptomatic (individuals who never develop any symptoms) from pre-symptomatic transmission (where individuals do eventually develop symptoms). To the extent that the latter phenomenon, which has in fact happened only very rarely, is deemed worthy of public health action, appropriate strategies to manage it (in the absence of significant asymptomatic transmission) would be entirely different and much less disruptive than those actually adopted.

We state emphatically that the concept of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of COVID virus was devised to frighten the population into compliance and that it was not central to this pandemic as we were told. Evidence to support its existence remains lacking and absent. We close by offering our continued beliefs and thus opinion on how this pandemic should have been handled from the start. We would have as a basic, the strong double and triple down protection of the elderly high-risk populations. If this is not done properly and first, then there will be no success. We should have fostered improved hand-washing hygiene and isolation of only the ill/sick/symptomatic persons. No asymptomatic person is/was to be quarantined and there is only to be testing of symptomatic persons or when there is strong clinical suspicion. We would promote improved support for the immune system such as public service messages about vitamin D supplements (especially in societies with limited sunlight), and allow the rest of the low-risk society to live largely unfettered daily lives, taking sensible reasonable safety precautions. This would allow them to mingle and be exposed to each other harmlessly and naturally, so that this would drive population level immunity. At the same time, we would offer early outpatient treatment to high-risk positive persons (in nursing homes or their private homes). This includes the elderly, younger persons with underlying medical conditions, and obese persons.

We feel that had this approach been enacted from the very beginning, the devastating losses incurred by businesses and the economy, as well as the deaths of despair to the business owners, employees, and our school children would have been avoided. There were crushing harms to our societies and especially our children and this is unforgivable for the data was always available and we have been screaming loudly from March 2020 on the pending tragedy if our governments continued in that manner. The narrative and falsehood of ‘asymptomatic spread’ helped severely hobble and damage the pandemic response as it caused devastating personal and economic loses to accrue needlessly, and especially for our children. Especially for the poorer among us who could least afford!

June 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Debunked, the myth of asymptomatic Covid transmission

By Abir Ballan and Helen Tindall | The Conservative Woman | June 10, 2021

ACROSS the globe, official public health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic has been underpinned by the concern that people without disease symptoms may transmit the virus. This has led to recommendations such as universal mask-wearing, social distancing, mass testing, stay at home orders and school and business closures.

As the BMJ said in December: ‘Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling.’

The concern that SARS-CoV-2 could be spread by people without symptoms originally came from a single case report. It was alleged that an asymptomatic woman from China had spread the virus to 16 other contacts in Germany. Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission. As with other common respiratory viruses, SARS-CoV-2 spreads by being exhaled, coughed or sneezed into the air. The largest droplets fall quickly and settle on the ground whilst the most lightweight particles, known as aerosols, may remain suspended in the air for days. Once the virus is present in the environment, it spreads by finding its way into the respiratory tract of new hosts in a large enough quantity (known as the ‘viral load’ or ‘infectious dose’) to infect them. The theory of fomite transmission (touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face) is not supported by scientific evidence. 

The most significant risk factor for Covid-19 disease is advanced age and the presence of underlying health issues such as cardiovascular disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes. Both factors contribute to a frail immune system. In addition to the health status of the exposed person, the environment in which exposure occurs also affects the probability of that person falling ill. Infectious aerosols remain suspended for longer in cold, dry air. Hence respiratory viruses transmit most efficiently during colder seasons. People spend more time indoors during cold weather, where poor ventilation leads to higher concentrations of infectious aerosols remaining in the air. Spending time in crowded indoor spaces also increases the risk of transmission. Furthermore, lack of exposure to the sun in colder weather results in lower Vitamin D levels, and greater susceptibility to illness if infected.

Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes some individuals to become ill with Covid-19. Many people have had previous exposure to other related coronaviruses. These individuals develop mild or no symptoms following infection with SARS-CoV2, most likely due to protection conferred by this exposure. Cross-immunity has been demonstrated in multiple studies.

People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Serious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.

A person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen:

● The test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected);

● The person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test);

● The person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms;

● The person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms.

In asymptomatic individuals, the viral load is typically very low and the infectious period is also short in duration. They may still exhale virus particles, which another person may encounter. However, the overall likelihood of transmitting the disease to others is negligible. Thus asymptomatic cases are not the major drivers of epidemics. As Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases stated in March 2020: ‘In all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person.’

A study in May 2020 found that all 455 contacts of an asymptomatic individual did not become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the researchers concluded that ‘the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak’.

A recent study shows the minimal effect of asymptomatic transmission within the same household. One thousand asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals led to seven new infections, while 1000 symptomatic individuals led to 180 new infections. The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals. The risk of asymptomatic spread outdoors would be even more insignificant.

The recently debunked theory of asymptomatic transmission as an important driver of outbreaks has been responsible for healthy people being considered to be walking biohazards. The testing, quarantining and masking of healthy people is not supported by scientific evidence and is therefore unethical. Masks, for example, do not protect anyone from contracting the virus. The size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is 1/10,000 mm and can easily pass through medical or cloth masks with each inhalation and exhalation. According to a review of the literature published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, ‘We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.’ Empirical evidence from (otherwise similar) masked vs unmasked states, regions and countries has also failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect.

A sensible recommendation is to ask sick individuals to stay at home until they are recovered, which may last for about eight days. This age-old commonsense practice would have saved the world incredible collateral damage. Instead of wasting resources by focusing on the healthy, it’s time to shift our attention to the vulnerable to improve their prognosis and survival. This strategy involves three key components: prevention (Vitamin D supplementation, healthy lifestyle, avoiding crowded indoor places during the peak of outbreaks and safe and efficacious vaccination), early treatment of symptoms in the high-risk group and effective treatment protocols in the event of hospitalisation.

This article was written for and first published by PANDA, a group of multi-disciplinary professionals which promotes open science and rational debate, replacing flawed science with good science and aims at retrieving liberty and prosperity from the clutches of a dystopian ‘new normal’. It is republished by kind permission.

June 10, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

The Myth of the ‘Asymptomatic Spreader’ Dealt Another Blow This Week

21st Century Wire | May 24, 2021

Since the pandemic crisis began in early 2020, government and public health officials have been adamant that any difficult measures taken were all being done in order to ‘control the spread of the virus’ or ‘stop the disease.’ Thus, a litany of so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions, and also pharmaceutical interventions – were deemed by the consensus to be essential measures in fighting the spread of what was being characterized as an asymptomatic disease.

Over a year later, a few industrious ‘public health’ mavens have summoned the courage to actually test this fundamental assumption. Recently in the UK, officials have staged and monitored nine large-scale events, including an FA Cup final football match, and the Brit Awards – both of which were exempt from the usual COVID rules. The results of this test should be hailed as good news, but for those heavily invested in the narrative, it’s nothing short of a meltdown: little to no coronavirus “cases” turned up.

Officials managed to scrape together just 15 alleged “cases” or “infections” (deemed as such merely from a single ‘positive test’) out of some 60,000 total attendees.

The result of this experiment has dealt a crushing blow to the central myth upon which the entire COVID-19 ‘global pandemic’ crisis has been built – namely the myth of the asymptomatic spread, and the much-maligned notorious “super-spreader” events.

Sky News UK reports…

Nine large-scale events were staged as part of the government’s plan to allow for the return of big crowds this summer. Those who attended were exempt from certain coronavirus rules, such as the rule-of-six.

The government confirmed to Sky News that 15 COVID cases had been recorded out of nearly 60,000 people who attended the events, which “is in line with the broader population”.

Latest figures show the rate of people testing positive for COVID in the UK is 22 infections per 100,000 people.

The pilot events included three football matches at Wembley Stadium – the FA Cup final which was attended by 21,000 supporters, an FA Cup semi-final and the Carabao Cup final.

IMAGE: Animated graphic from NPR’s debunked April 2020 propaganda article entitled, “What We Know About The Silent Spreaders Of COVID-19.”

Combine this latest UK admission with the recent backtracking by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the US Center for Disease Control CDC on masks and asymptomatic transmissions, and it’s clear that officials will have no choice now but to back-off supporting the nonscience-based myth of the asymptomatic spreader or “silent spreaders,” and it’s not difficult to see how problematic this widely held assumption is now becoming, with many media doctors and public health officials now facing challenges over what can only be described as a collective propaganda effort deployed by government, media and medical industry over the last 14 months.

The peer-reviewed literature is also clear, with large-scale studies conducted, including at the supposed epicenter of the pandemic in Wuhan, China – all of which showed no evidence of alleged asymptomatic spreading of the ‘novel’ coronavirus. See their results herehere, and here.

Of course, none of this should surprise any honest doctor or real scientist. We’ve always known that any disease requires symptoms first. But somehow, common sense has been completely abandoned during the Covid crisis.

Of all the widely-held assumptions and hysteria surrounding the COVID crisis, none has been more pivotal than the myth of the ‘asymptomatic spread’ in ballasting every single unprecedented ‘health intervention’ policy including:

  • Social Distancing
  • Mass Testing
  • Reliance on non-diagnostic PCR and Lateral Flow tests
  • Track and Trace bio surveillance
  • Lockdowns
  • Quarantining the healthy
  • Masks
  • Border Closures
  • Business Closures
  • School Closures
  • Mass Vaccinations
  • Vaccine Passports

It’s astonishing to consider that every single one of these emergency measures have been predicated on the widely-held, nonscientific myth of the asymptomatic spread.

Perhaps more shocking is the fact that no one in government, media or the legions of newly-crowned ‘public health experts’ – have bothered to challenge this key assumption, perhaps out of fear, or more likely because it was politically and economically expedient for stakeholders of the current crisis narrative.

It is not uncommon the see the bevy of experts and media anchors, all repeating ad nauseum presumptive statements like:

“A third of people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have no symptoms but are just as infectious as those with COVID-19.”

Unraveling the murky ontology of the myth of the asymptomatic spreader, we can point to an informative piece published recently in Lockdown Skeptics entitled, How Did a Disease With no Symptoms Take Over the World?” A fair question, and indeed a necessary one too.

The article answers this question quite simply – it’s so obvious and still profound if one pauses to consider just how many of the so-called experts and health ministers have routinely avoided applying any real epistemology or scientific method to the wild ‘pandemic’ claims which have become so commonplace over the last 14 months:

“Given that this is all so blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever been near a biology textbook, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw about the creation of an asymptomatic disease is that it wasn’t done by a biologist but instead by individuals (probably on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)) whose agenda is not to convey accurate information to the public but something different: fear and uncertainty.”

It’s been 14 months, and the world has been turned upside-down, and the billionaire class have reached new heights in wealth and consolidation of power and influence, while everyone else has slid downwards.

Let there be a reckoning. It’s time to talk about the real science – which does not even remotely support the inflated ‘global pandemic’ narrative.

May 24, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment


Sam Bailey, May 4, 2021

Asymptomatic Transmission? Sounds pretty dodgy. Time to blow the lid on this one…

Please support my channel ▶

Leave me a tip! ▶

Virus Mania book:
Abe (lots of suppliers):–srp1-_-PLP1

US Independent Bookseller Powell’s Books:



Follow me on Odysee (go on you know you want to!) ▶

Follow me on LBRY (it’s the older version of Odysee but still good)
Follow me on BrandNew Tube (yes, it has even more stuff!) ▶

Send business/sponsorship inquiries to

1. Oracle Films:

Personal correspondence with Dr Robin Wakeling
2. Dr Robin Wakeling:

3. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19):

4. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis:

5. Estimating the Extent of True Asymptomatic COVID-19 and Its Potential for Community Transmission: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis:

6. Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020:

7. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore:

8. Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19:

9. Mark Slifka & Gina Gao response to above paper:

May 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 2 Comments

Risk of Asymptomatic Spread Minimal. Variants Over-Hyped. Masks Pointless. An Interview With Professor Jay Bhattacharya

By Oliver May | Lockdown Sceptics | March 25, 2021

New variants are of no concern. There is no need to cancel summer holidays. Millions vaccinated, coupled with immunity from millions of prior infections means we can surf on the crest of the third wave, rather than being remotely concerned about it. In fact, the UK should open now. And vaccine passports, certificates, or whatever name they are being given, will do nothing to improve the health of the population – all headlines we have read and heard over the past week or so.

Except, we haven’t. We have heard and read the opposite. And we are instilled with fear from TV and radio adverts, complete with ‘that scary voice’ all too eager to give listeners nightmares, be it your impressionable primary-school-aged daughter, or a frail older lady now terrified into wearing a mask outside while waiting for a bus with no one within a 50-metre radius. But the reality is that the above headlines could have been written – and all based on science. Jayanta Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University and one of the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, the report that called for the focused protection of the vulnerable and no lockdowns, signed by almost 14,000 medical and public health scientists, nearly 42,000 medical practitioners and close to 765,000 concerned citizens.

I interviewed him by email and he remains a staunch lockdown sceptic.

Why have the media, politicians and many scientists sought to panic the populace about SARS-CoV-2 far beyond what the evidence would warrant? The incentives include financial motives, political goals, the desire to protect professional reputations and many other factors.

The virus is seasonal and late fall/winter is its season. It is very unlikely, given that this is the case, that the virus will spread very widely during the summer months. It is also the case that a large fraction of the UK population has already been infected or vaccinated and is immune, which will greatly reduce hospitalisation and mortality from the virus in coming months.

There are tens of thousands of mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. They mutate because the replication mechanisms they induce involve very little error checking. Most of the mutations either do not change the virulence of the virus, or weaken it. There are a few mutations that provide the virus with a selective advantage in infectivity and may increase its lethality very slightly, though the evidence on this latter point is not solid.

We should not be particularly concerned about the variants that have arisen to date. First, prior infection with the wild type virus and vaccination provide protection against severe outcomes arising from reinfection with the mutated virus. Second, though the mutants have taken over the few remaining cases, their rise has coincided with a sharp drop in cases and deaths, even in countries where they have come to dominate. Their selective infectivity advantage has not been enough to cause a resurgence in cases. Third, the age gradient in mortality is the same for the mutant and wild-type virus. Thus a focused protection policy is still warranted. If lockdowns could not stop the less infectious wild type virus, why would we expect them to stop the more infectious mutant virus?

According to the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration which, other than Dr Bhattacharya, include Dr Martin Kulldorff, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Dr Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford, the UK Government is creating unfounded hysteria around SARS-CoV-2. Dr Bhattacharya said:

According to a meta-analysis by Dr John Ioannidis [Professor of Medicine at Stanford University] of every seroprevalence study conducted to date of publication with a supporting scientific paper (74 estimates from 61 studies and 51 different localities around the world), the median infection survival rate from COVID-19 infection is 99.77 per cent. For COVID-19 patients under 70, the meta-analysis finds an infection survival rate of 99.95 per cent.

The CDC’s [Centres for Disease Control] and Prevention] best estimate of infection fatality rate for people ages 70 plus years is 5.4 per cent, meaning seniors have a 94.6 per cent survivability rate. For children and people in their 20s/30s, it poses less risk of mortality than the flu. For people in their 60s and above, it is much more dangerous than the flu.

Even so, this hardly warrants a new Government drive urging families to carry out tests on their children twice a week in the hope of unearthing asymptomatic cases. Especially, as the vulnerable have already been vaccinated.

The scientific evidence now strongly suggests that COVID-19 infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease to even close contacts than symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 per cent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 per cent of instances. A separate, smaller meta-analysis similarly found that asymptomatic patients are much less likely to infect others than symptomatic patients.

Asymptomatic individuals are an order of magnitude less likely to infect others than symptomatic individuals, even in intimate settings such as people living in the same household where people are much less likely to follow social distancing and masking practices that they follow outside the household. Spread of the disease in less intimate settings by asymptomatic individuals – including religious services, in-person restaurant visits, gyms, and other public settings – are likely to be even less likely than in the household.

What about mask mandates?

The evidence that mask mandates work to slow the spread of the disease is very weak. The only randomised evaluation of mask efficacy in preventing Covid infection found very small, statistically insignificant effects [Danish mask study]. And masks are deleterious to the social and educational development of children, especially young children. They are not needed to address the epidemic. In Sweden, for instance, children have been in school maskless almost the whole of the epidemic, with no child Covid deaths and teachers contracting Covid at rates that are lower than the average of other workers.

In light of this, what conclusion can we draw from the fact that the UK Government wants the entire adult population to be injected against the virus, instead of just the vulnerable? And the possibility that we’ll need to produce vaccine certificates to access hospitality and sports venues or travel overseas?

Vaccine passports are a terrible idea that will diminish trust in public health and do nothing to improve the health of the population. Vaccine certificates are not needed as a public health measure. The Government had it right previously. The country should open up now that the older, vulnerable population has been vaccinated. The rest of the population is at much greater health risk from the lockdown than they are from the virus.

The author is a staff journalist at a national newspaper group. Oliver May is a pseudonym.

April 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 2 Comments


World Doctors Alliance, February 10, 2021

Asymptomatic transmission study:

The World Doctors Alliance (WDA) is committed to honouring the inalienable rights of every living man, woman and child which includes free speech, freedom of bodily integrity,
freedom of travel and informed consent.
All information contained in this video is solely the unique views of the professionals featured and does not constitute any kind of consensus amongst the WDA team.
WDA is not legally liable for the actions and opinions of the viewers herewith.
All information presented is not intended as medical advice.
Always consult your trusted medical health care provider before accepting any medical
treatment or procedures using informed consent as etched in the Nuremberg Code.
WDA 2021.

Information and more presented in this video canbe sourced from the following websites:
WDA on Telegram
The Great Barrington Declaration

February 20, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

‘No evidence’ that asymptomatic Covid-19 cases were infectious: analysis of post-lockdown Wuhan

RT | November 21, 2020

A paper that analyzed the results of a massive post-lockdown Covid-19 testing drive that included nearly every eligible resident of Wuhan, China has found no evidence that positive cases without symptoms spread the disease.

The analysis, published in the scientific journal Nature, looked at the results of a screening initiative held between May and June in Wuhan, the city where the first cases of the novel coronavirus were detected in late 2019. The origins of the virus have yet to be determined, with new studies suggesting that the disease could have been in Italy as early as September last year.

Nearly 10 million people were tested, consisting of 92 percent of all residents aged six years or older.

Incredibly, no new symptomatic cases were registered, and only 300 asymptomatic cases were detected. Subsequent tests of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic cases found resulted in no new positives.

There is “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the paper said, adding that the results of the massive screening program could help health authorities “adjust prevention and control strategies in the post-lockdown period.”

The analysis seems to confirm preliminary findings that were released during the screening program. Professor Lu Zuxun, from Wuhan’s Huazhong University of Science & Technology, said back in June that there was currently no evidence that asymptomatic people were passing the virus to other people, but cautioned at the time against drawing broad conclusions.

The paper’s authors acknowledged that previous studies had found evidence that asymptomatic individuals were infectious and could become symptomatic later, but theorized that Wuhan residents still testing positive for the virus after the city’s strict lockdown had a “low quantity of viral loads” and therefore were unable to pass the illness on to other people.

Wuhan was placed under a strict lockdown lasting more than 70 days. The tight regulations essentially cut off the city from the rest of China, with only one person from each household allowed to leave their residential compound for a maximum of two hours.

The paper comes amid a growing debate over the efficacy of Covid-19 restrictions. City and even nationwide lockdowns and mask-wearing mandates have been justified using the argument that even asymptomatic individuals could spread the disease and inadvertently overwhelm health services. However, many have argued that the social and economic costs of lockdowns far outweigh any purported benefits, and have pointed to evidence that asymptomatic people are not infectious.

Back in June, the World Health Organization (WHO) backtracked after stating that asymptomatic people rarely infect others with Covid-19, saying that there wasn’t enough evidence to back up the claim.

November 21, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Asymptomatic Spreaders, Typhoid Mary, SARS, MERS and COVID

By Christopher Brett – Fossils of Lanark – April 30, 2020

“The next pandemic virus will be present in Canada within 3 months after it emerges in another part of the world, but it could be much sooner because of the volume and speed of global air travel.  …  Given the increase, different patterns and speed of modern travel, a  new virus once arriving in Canada could spread quickly in multiple directions throughout the country. … The first peak of illness in Canada could occur within 2 to 4 months after the virus arrives in Canada. The first peak in mortality is expected to be approximately 1 month after the peak in illness.”

The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector, 2006
Dr. Theresa Tam and Karen Grimsrud, Co-Chairs

At the beginning of February I was surprised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s assertions that it was safe to continue to fly to China, that we would only  be testing those who self-reported symptoms, and that his plan for testing was science based. I was also surprised that Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam asserted that there was no risk from asymptomatic spreaders. It has come as no surprise to me that we have now closed our borders to China and most other countries, that we have stepped up our testing and begun contact tracing, and that studies have shown that asymptomatic spreading of COVID-19 is the norm.

I had six  main reasons for objecting to Canada continuing passenger flights to China:

– First, we were the only country continuing to fly to China.
– Second, it was all over the news that by the time Wuhan was placed under quarantine over half the population of Wuhan had fled to other parts of China.
– Third, the virus had spread to many other parts of China, including most major cities, by February 1st
– Fourth, we were not testing people when they got on the planes in China for coronavirus, we were not testing the passengers when they disembarked from the planes, there were no penalties for breaking the quarantine,  there no checks being made of the passengers to ensure that they were adhering to the quarantine, and there were no spot tests of the people coming from China. A few people arriving from China were advised to self-quarantine, but not everyone.
– Fifth, in November, 2014 during the Ebola crisis, Prime Minister Stephen Harper banned people  from Ebola-stricken West Africa from traveling to Canada. As a consequence of his actions no Ebola case arose in Canada. The USA did not ban people from West Africa and confirmed a case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States in a man who traveled from West Africa to Dallas, Texas. That patient died. Earlier Saudi Arabia had announced a travel ban aimed at preventing Liberians, Sierra Leoneans and Guineans from visiting Islam’s holy sites. No Ebola case arose in Saudi Arabia.
– Sixth, a ban works.

My main concern with  Dr. Theresa Tam’s assertion  that there was no risk from asymptomatic spreaders is that I have been aware of Typhoid Mary for over fifty-five years as she was often mentioned in side bars and fillers in newspapers when I was young. Typhoid Mary is the poster child for  asymptomatic spreaders. Her real name was Mary Mallon. She was employed as a cook in various households and kitchens in the New York area over the period from 1907 to 1915. She was the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of  typhoid fever and is believed to have infected 51 people, at least  three of whom died. (Some estimates put the death total at fifty.) Eventually she was arrested and put in quarantine to stop her working and spreading the disease. Interestingly, Marineli et al. (2013) mention that “By the time she died New York health officials had identified more than 400 other healthy carriers of Salmonella typhi.”

Intriguingly there is a fair amount of information on diseases having been transmitted by  asymptomatic carriers of diseases.    In addition to typhoid, Wickipedia mentions  C. difficile, influenzas,  tuberculosis, and HIV. Transmission of diseases by asymptomatic carriers appears to be the norm,  rather than the exception, for infectious diseases.

Dr. Theresa Tam stated that she followed and implemented The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector , 2006 (“Canada’s Pandemic Plan”), of which she was the co-author. If she had followed the plan she should have noticed that “Transmission by asymptomatic persons is possible but it is more efficient when symptoms, such as coughing, are present and viral shedding is high (i.e. early in symptomatic period).” and that the “potential for asymptomatic infection and spread from asymptomatic individuals greatly limits the effectiveness and feasibility of most traditional public health control measures.”

If she had done a bit of research Dr. Tan might also have located an article by Fraser  et al. (2004) discussing factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable, in which they argue that “Direct estimation of the proportion of asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections is achievable by contact tracing and should be a priority during an outbreak of a novel infectious agent.” noting that “no confirmed cases of transmission from asymptomatic patients have been reported to date in detailed epidemiological analyses of clusters of SARS cases, which suggests that, for SARS, there is a period after symptoms develop during which people can be isolated before their infectiousness increases. Actions taken during this period to isolate or quarantine ill patients can effectively interrupt transmission.”

She might also have noted a paper by Myoung-don Oh et al. (2018) analyzing the 2015 MERS coronavirus outbreak in Korea in which they mention that “the potential for transmission from asymptomatic rRT-PCR positive individuals is still unknown. Therefore, asymptomatic [persons who test] positive for MERS-CoV should be isolated and should not return to work until two consecutive respiratory-tract samples test negative.”

Another paper that Dr. Tan might have located without much trouble is a 2018 report by the World Health Organization providing guidance for asymptomatic persons who test positive for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). She should have noted the paper in part because Katherine Defalco, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada contributed to the WHO’s report. In this report WHO state that the potential for transmission from asymptomatic  positive MERS-CoV  persons is currently unknown  but still recommended that “asymptomatic RT-PCR positive persons should be isolated , followed up daily for development of any  symptoms and tested at least weekly – or earlier, if symptoms develop – for MERS-CoV. The place of isolation (hospital or home) shall depend on the  health – care system’s isolation  bed capacity, its capacity to  monitor asymptomatic RT- PCR positive persons daily outside a health-care setting, and  the  conditions of the household and its occupants.” WHO also recommended that “When providing home isolation of asymptomatic RT-PCR  positive persons, the person and family  should be provided with clear instructions on:

•  adequate physical separation from potential householdor social contacts, especially those with risk conditions for severe MERS-CoV illness (e.g. separate room and toilet);
•  having  food in the room and avoid sharing food or  being in the same room with others as much as possible;
•  avoidance of visitors and travel; …

WHO also cautioned that “sometimes it is difficult to classify a case as ‘asymptomatic’ because although the person may not have any symptoms at the time of testing, he or she may develop illness during the course of infection.”

In contrast to WHO’s recommendations for asymptomatic MERS-CoV coronavirus persons, Canada did no testing to find asymptomatic COVID-19 coronavirus carriers. Instead we were told that they posed no threat, and that it was only those that developed symptoms who required testing. As noted above, recent studies have shown that asymptomatic spreading of COVID-19 is the norm. More importantly, Lai et al. (2020) report that “the transmission of COVID-19 through asymptomatic carriers via person-to-person contact was observed in many reports” citing reports published on the web by Rothe on January 30, 2020; by Liu on February 12, 2020; by Yu on February 18; and by Bai on February 21, 2020. Surprisingly, despite these warnings no effort was made in Canada in February or March to test for asymptomatic carriers.  In fact, we still don’t test for asymptomatic carriers.

There have been further reports of asymptomatic spreading. On March 23 Qian et al. reported a COVID-19 family cluster in China caused by a presymptomatic case. On April 1st Wei et al, reported on an investigation of all 243 cases of COVID-19 reported in Singapore during January 23–March 16 and identified seven clusters of cases in which presymptomatic transmission is the most likely explanation for the occurrence of secondary cases. Ten of the cases within these clusters were attributed to presymptomatic transmission and accounted for 6.4% of the 157 locally acquired cases reported as of March 16.

Dr. Tam was on the CBC News the other night reporting that only ten cases in Canada could be traced to origins in China. However, we only tested those who self-reported symptoms. As we never  tested for  asymptomatic spreaders , we will never know how many asymptomatic spreaders from China (or other countries) were in Canada. Further, we have only traced a fraction of those who have developed the disease, and will only know that many people contracted the disease while in Canada, without knowing the source for their disease.


References and Suggested Reading

Anonymous, 2003
Learning from SARS – Renewal of Public Health  in Canada. A report of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health October 2003. 234 pages

Anonymous, 2020a
Asymptomatic carrier

Anonymous, 2020b
Mary Mallon

Anonymous, 2020c
Subclinical infection

Y. Bai, L. Yao, T. Wei, F. Tian, D.Y. Jih, L. Chen, et al., 2020 Feb 21
Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19
J Am Med Assoc (2020 Feb 21), 10.1001/jama.2020.2565

Filio Marineli, Gregory Tsoucalas, Marianna Karamanou, and George Androutsos, 2013
Mary Mallon (1869-1938) and the history of typhoid fever.  Ann Gastroenterol. 2013; 26(2): 132–134.

Fraser C, Riley S, Anderson R et al. 2004
Factors that make an infectious disease outbreak controllable. Proc Natl Acad  Sci USA 2004;101(16):6146–51.

Lai, Chih-Cheng; Liu, Yen Hung; Wang, Cheng-Yi; Wang, Ya-Hui; Hsueh, Shun-Chung; Yen, Muh-Yen; Ko, Wen-Chien; Hsueh, Po-Ren (2020-03-04).
Asymptomatic carrier state, acute respiratory disease, and pneumonia due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Facts and myths”. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection. doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2020.02.012. ISSN 1684-1182.

Y.C. Liu, C.H. Liao, C.F. Chang, C.C. Chou, Y.R. Lin , 2020 Feb 12
A locally transmitted case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Taiwan.
New England J Med (2020 Feb 12), 10.1056/NEJMc2001573

Myoung-don Oh, Wan Beom Park, Sang-Won Park, Pyoeng Gyun Choe, Ji Hwan Bang, Kyoung-Ho Song, Eu Suk Kim, Hong Bin Kim, and Nam Joong Kim, 2018
Middle East respiratory syndrome: what we learned from the 2015 outbreak in the Republic of Korea.  Korean J Intern Med. 2018 Mar; 33(2): 233–246.
Published online 2018 Feb 27. doi: 10.3904/kjim.2018.031

Qian G, Yang N, Ma AHY, et al. Epub March 23, 2020
A COVID-19 Transmission within a family cluster by presymptomatic infectors in China. Clin Infect Dis 2020.

C. Rothe, M. Schunk, P. Sothmann, G. Bretzel, G. Froeschl, C. Wallrauch, et al. (2020 Jan 30)
Transmission of 2019-nCoV infection from an asymptomatic contact in Germany
N Engl J Med, 10.1056/NEJMc2001468

Theresa Tam and Karen Grimsrud, Co-Chairs, 2006
The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan for the Health Sector.  Public Health Agency of Canada.
550 pages.

W. E. Wei; , Z. Li; C. J. Chiew, S. E. Yong, M. P. Toh, V. J. Lee,  2020, April 10& April 1
Presymptomatic Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 — Singapore, January 23–March 16, 2020
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 69(14);411–415. On April 1, 2020, this report was posted online as an MMWR Early Release.

World Health Organization,   2018
Management of asymptomatic persons who are RT-PCR positive for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV): Interim guidance . 3 January  2018
WHO/MERS/IPC/15.2 Rev.1 Geneva:

P. Yu, J. Zhu, Z. Zhang, Y. Han, L. Huang, 2020 Feb 18
A familial cluster of infection associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating potential person-to-person transmission during the incubation period
J Infect Dis (2020 Feb 18), 10.1093/infdis/jiaa077

Peter Zimonjic, Rosemary Barton, Philip Ling, 2020
‘Was it perfect? No’: Theresa Tam discusses Canada’s early pandemic response. ‘Could we have done more at the time? You can retrospectively say yes,’ Canada’s top doctor says CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2020

May 1, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Talk of lockdowns, school closures, and masks for COVID-19 Delta variant is absurd and without scientific basis

Do the CDC and NIH leaders and Surgeon General ever read the science?

Paul Elias Alexander, PhD, Howard Tenenbaum, DDS, PhD, Parvez Dara, MD, MBA | Trial Site News | July 23, 2021

How did we get here? The economic and health fallouts of the lockdowns have been staggering and will take 100 years to remediate by some estimates. The American Institute of Economic Research (AIER) recently published a seminal piece on the COVID recession by Mulligan that paints a harrowing picture: “the current recession briefly caused a 10% loss of real GDP, with unemployment rising as high as 15%”. Mulligan argues that “the Covid-19 recession was not triggered so much by unsustainable overexpansion as by profound restrictions motivated by public health considerations, and since this current recession did not come from any primarily monetary or public policy cause, we cannot look to economic policy alone to bring it to an end. An especially sharp decline in real GDP output occurred at the outset, but this was over by the second quarter of 2020…we have yet to fully recover in terms of output… there is every reason to anticipate that many of the economic responses will further retard economic growth”. These descriptions place the economic fallout of this pandemic and the devastating lockdown responses into stark perspective.

We begin by making this clarion urgent call to impose no more lockdowns or school closures in response to these existing COVID variants. The pandemic has been over a while now. The variants are very mild and this Delta variant is the mildest (non-lethal) thus far and by all estimates, based on existing reports, will present no or very mild symptoms (cold-like) to those infected. The media reports combined with the hysteria by the alphabet agency public health leaders from the CDC, NIH including the Surgeon General etc. borders on absurdity and is completely illogical. It is irrational based on the evidence out of UK and Israel who have given us good data on the behavior of the Delta, and makes no sense based on the evidence. They continue to exhibit academic sloppiness and it is either they do not read the science or do not understand it. It is incredible to listen to the specious and often drivel by these so called ‘experts’.

The self-harms, the deaths of despair, the suicides etc. by business owners, by employees, and by children/young persons will return if we lock down again. The lockdowns were a gut-wrenching catastrophic failure before, and caused crushing harms and deaths and we predict will do same again. Reports out of the UK for example suggest that five times more children committed suicide than died of Covid in first year of UK lockdown. The United States experiences a devastating surge in children suicides due to the lockdowns. “Jeanne Noble, director of COVID response in the UCSF emergency department, reported that “suicides in the Golden State last year jumped by 24% for Californians under 18 but fell by 11% for adults, showing how children were uniquely affected by “profound social isolation and loss of essential social supports traditionally provided by in-person school”. Just look at what happened in Las Vegas as a result of the school closures and lockdowns. Children killed themselves, and so why would anyone in their right mind contemplate reinstitution of lockdowns, school closures, and even masks? Masks are devastating for children socially, emotionally, and health wise. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the COVID masks are ineffective and we know of reports of toxicity and harms (which we present) especially to children. The World Health Organization (WHO) stipulates that children under 5 years of age not be masked and thus why would the CDC and US health officials call for masking of younger children e.g. 3 years old? What is wrong with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Dr. Fauci as they are clearly out of step with the science and seem not to understand the data collected for well over a year now on how ineffective the masks were (blue surgical and white cloth). What is it that they know that the WHO does not know given the US CDC and all of its public health officials have been flat wrong on everything COVID for over a year now. Alarmingly, the CDC’s updated guidance (July 9th 2021) calls for children as young as 2 years old to wear masks in school if unvaccinated. Is the guidance a form of pressuring and coercion of parents who decided against the vaccine for various reasons, so that they run quickly and vaccinate their child, against their informed judgement? Did the CDC ever actually look at the evidence and data on COVID and children?

The poorer children and females fared worst of all and were least able to afford the collateral effects of the lockdowns. Lockdowns shifted the burden to the poor in society and benefited the laptop class.

We know how to handle COVID in July 2021, and we can treat our way out of this and close out the pandemic. We do not need lockdowns and vaccines (especially for our children given there is no opportunity for benefit to them and only opportunity for harms from the vaccine) to address the variants. This is a very misleading, false, and reckless assertion by public health officials. The narrative of excess deaths in the unvaccinated is false and as mentioned, is not borne out by the Israel and UK data which shows that the variants are more infectious but much less lethal, and that infections are emerging at about a 50:50 split between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. The mortality rate for the Delta based on UK data is approximately 0.5% versus 1.8% for the Alpha. Makary of Johns Hopkins reminds us that of the 300 approximate children who have died with a diagnosis of COVID, the CDC is yet to define whether it was causal or incidental and their examination reveals these deaths were accompanied by underlying illness (risk). “100% of pediatric COVID-19 deaths were in children with a pre-existing condition…”. In terms of Delta and children, researchers (at the University of York, UCL, Imperial College London and the Universities of Bristol and Liverpool) also re-iterated that catching COVID-19 increases the risk of serious illness in those with pre-existing medical conditions and severe disabilities and thus emphasising that ‘well’ ‘healthy’ persons with no medical conditions have little issue with COVID. However, germane to the Delta issue in children, they reported that “it is reassuring that these findings reflect our clinical experience in hospital – we see very few seriously unwell children. Although this data covers up to February 2021, this hasn’t changed recently (July 2021) with the Delta variant. We hope this data will be reassuring for children and young people and their families”.

Lest one think that issues of economics and the economy are just about money, while the pandemic lockdown responses were put in place to save lives, we argue that this was and is decidedly not the case!  The excess deaths, mental health costs (look at the deaths of despair that have accumulated due to the lockdowns), and all the economic links to it, the (worldwide) hunger and poverty costs, the deep economic costs, the unemployment costs, the education costs, the healthcare costs, the crime costs, have all been devastating and all-encompassing with catastrophic outcomes, many yet to be experienced!  We fear the future morbidity and mortality and economic damage is yet to materialize but are coming due to the prior lockdowns.

How after 16 months of these insane, unsound, very draconian and crushing COVID-19 policies that revealed that lockdowns do not control the COVID virus, could our governments even consider lockdowns and masking again? Who re-institutes a failed policy? Lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, masking and all the other COVID restrictions have failed and no one can point anywhere to any example of a successful application. The real question is, after such devastating failures and harms to the societies, who hardens failed policies? This is absurd on every front. Governments (US, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, India, Caribbean etc.) asked for two weeks to ‘flatten the curve’ and as such, allow hospitals to respond without being overwhelmed with cases of COVID-19. Now it is 16 months later and by all accounts it has become obvious that these activities were unwarranted and based on suppositions if not outrights lies.

We make this claim after learning that even conservative cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses that focused on all societal impacts that should have been anticipated, were not done by any nation! No one thought to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses to examine the impact of their policies? These global governments and technocrats (and their COVID TASK Forces and advisory bodies) such as in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France etc. made these decisions without a shred of scientifically based evidence and have lost all credibility as a result. Yes, they had 16 to 17 months to prepare their hospitals and health systems, so is this really about their failures that they are placing on the backs of their populations? We argue it is their devastating failures on all fronts for the public has done its part, we did help ‘bend the curve’. We sacrificed and sheltered-in-place for over a year. It is they who have failed, all the Task Forces and all of the medical advisors. It is clear today in July 2021 that they did not know across 16 months what they were doing and still today, have no idea what they are doing.

Governments must be accountable for their actions, and in the case of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, they must admit that there was not only no benefit from any of what they did, but the harms were immense and in some cases are or will be beyond comprehension when studied retrospectively. Well into the 17th month now we are completely astounded that our governments are considering the reintroduction of new lockdowns (and masking) because of a perceived increase in ‘cases’ of COVID-19, the latter representing false positive test results of 70-90%. Given current evidence showing that the lockdowns had no impact on the spread of SARS CoV-2, we suggest that asking for even more lockdowns now indicates clearly the presence of government incompetence at best and malfeasance at worst. Our leaders and their Task Force advisors have failed us. This includes the television medical experts who are routinely spewing what could only be characterized as nonsense and drivel. The devastating and crushing economic losses (direct and indirect) continue and by some estimate will take decades if not the rest of the 21st century to re-balance as we pointed out above. The crushing economic harms, from shuttering of businesses and schools, and curtailing of medical services (often life preserving) with restrictions on freedom of movement has had a tremendous and massively destructive impact on the human psyche itself.

Sadly, lockdowns as mentioned, hurt the poorer and vulnerable among us by shifting the morbidity and mortality burden to the underprivileged. Lockdowns were unforgiving in this. We locked down the ‘well’ and healthy in society, the ones best able to confront the virus successfully, and failed to protect the actual risk groups those being the vulnerable and elderly. Wealth disparities placed those who were more vulnerable economically in a very difficult position in terms of sheltering from the pandemic. They suffered incalculable harm in both life from despair and property from job losses. Meanwhile the rich emerged wealthier with deeper moats around their mansions. The deaths of despair due to the lockdowns, especially among the poorer classes, were staggering. “Local data on opioid overdoses support the hypothesis further that the pandemic and recession were associated with a 10 to 60 percent increase in deaths of despair above already high pre-pandemic levels” (AIER’s Yang and NBER).

The actions of our governments hurt the poor in societies terribly, and many could not hold on and committed suicide. Deaths of despair skyrocketed. Poor children, especially in richer western nations such as the US and Canada, self-harmed and many ended their lives. These children did not die because of the pandemic virus, but due to the ill-conceived lockdowns and school closures. Is this the legacy our governments and their COVID advisors wish to be remembered by? If so they must be inept, or full of arrogance, hubris, and self-righteousness, if they cannot recognize their catastrophic failures while continuing to operate as though the last 16 to 17 months was replete with a blistering array of successes.

We found out in the Spring of 2020, that the disease, COVID-19, could be subdivided into three distinct phases, each requiring different but nuanced and not complicated use of various drug regimens. These regimes included a cocktail of antivirals, corticosteroids, and anti-thrombotic therapeutics. And early on we determined that COVID-19 was amenable to risk stratification and that the baseline risk was prognostic on an individual’s mortality (severity of illness). We knew that this virus could be dealt with effectively with early treatment and based on a focused ‘age-risk’ targeted approach. Yet all of this critically important information was ignored for unknown reasons. We had passed through Alice’s looking glass so that real science including real world data was somehow akin to voodoo while the bureaucrat/official experts’ pseudoscientific proclamations were the gospel. Shockingly, the media or listeners never asked the public health officials to provide any of the data/evidnece or science that underpinned anything they stated.

We find no evidence that more lockdowns in July 2021 after 16 months of insanity will better society and reduce risks and that includes masking of 3-year-olds, which is utterly ridiculous, and absurd, if not outright stupidity. It appears downright cruel to the children when such mandates are imposed without any basis. None. This can be considered child abuse by our governments and public health officials. The ongoing research says that children have zero risk of getting COVID-19 virus on the basis of statistical analysis. They do not spread the virus readily or develop severe illness at any statistically reportable level. The risk is statistical zero. In relation to this Makary out of Johns Hopkins analyzed insurance claims of 48,000 children under 18 years old in the US and demonstrated that when there is no underlying medical condition such as leukemia, the mortality rate in children is zero (0). Even the WHO, not the most reliable medical group when it comes to COVID-19, is advising against the use of masks for children under 5 years of age. What data is the CDC and NIH and people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Walensky (current Director of the CDC) seeing that we are not? What evidence are they looking at to support their decisions to mask children July 2021 who are 2 to 3 years old and above? We think this is insane and cruel and dangerous given the potential for harm to children. We think these public health leaders are grossly inept and misinformed.

We clearly do not see the need for masking and lockdowns and if there is science and data that informs them, we certainly plead with them to provide it to us!  Sadly, until now, we, the public have not seen any such evidence that supports masking and lockdowns and in particular, closures of schools! And it’s not because the data are unavailable!  In Sweden it’s been demonstrated in a NEJM publication that of 1.95 million school children who were followed for over one year (<16 years of age), and who attended school without masks (and did not wear masks in general), there were zero (0) deaths! How then, can anyone justify the use of masks for children or school closures?

Obfuscations continue from these once hallowed institutions; The CDC has over 20,000 employees on staff yet cannot tell the nation if the 335 children listed as having died with a COVID-19 diagnosis died as a direct result of having contracted COVID-19, or died incidentally but were shown to have mRNA or mRNA fragments of SARS CoV-2 on the basis of the flawed PCR tests used. Why?

The cacophony surrounding the Delta variant as mentioned, is deafening and the emergence of this variant indicates the need for reintroduction of lockdowns again. Yet virtually all available data show that the Delta variant is less virulent, therefore causing mild disease akin to the common cold in most cases. It is more infectious than earlier variants but is easily suppressed by the human immune system and would be no match for early multidrug outpatient intervention.

What is the evidence on lockdowns and other societal restrictions? Lockdowns imposed by the COVID-19 Task Force in the US and used globally have proven ineffective and harmful to the society as a strategy and must not be imposed again. Their strategies were unscientific policies and approved by governments and technocrats and sold by the hysterical media, costing many thousands of lives. The evidence is damning against these governmental and their willing allies in the media as we show below.

We found out conclusively about the catastrophic harms (consequences) and failures of lockdowns (references 1, 2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970). There is one SAGE advisor UK who calls for masks and lockdowns ‘forever’. Yet in the US, as of June 2021, we see that the states with the longest and most draconian lockdowns fared worse as to economic impacts, with higher unemployment numbers being recorded along with the same or even better health outcomes as compared to states with hard lockdowns and other regulations. “With employment numbers (as of May 2021), we find a similar story. The states with the worst unemployment numbers are Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and New York. Once again, these are some of the states with the most strict [COVID-19] regulations and lockdowns”.

You need not look further than the recent pivotal study from Stanford University that observed stay-at-home and business closure lockdown effects on the spread of SARS CoV-2 by Bendavid, Bhattacharya, and Ioannidis who examined restrictive versus less restrictive pandemic policies in 10 nations (8 countries with harsh lockdowns versus two with light public health restrictions). They concluded that there was no clear benefit of lockdown restrictions on case growth in any of the 10 nations. And yet, we also have the immense burden of harms caused by lockdowns! The treatment is killing the patient.

We also learned about the crushing harms of school closures (references 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142, 4344454647484950515253545556). Closing schools failed miserably and severely harmed children! Closing schools was catastrophic.  It might not be known widely but open schools provide a semblance of normalcy in the lives of vulnerable and at-risk youth because it is at school where school children often their get their only meal of the day, or their eyes and hearing tested. Children are protected in schools where their teachers are often the first responsible adults to take note of sexual and physical abuse in the home, which can then be attended to by the appropriate officials.

Internationally and based on research carried out at Oxford University (June 2021), we know that lockdowns and closures/restrictions (informed by research spanning 22 countries to determine the global scope and scale of missed childhood vaccinations) caused 40 million children in Pakistan to miss their polio vaccination, 61% of 10 to 23-month-olds to miss their measles vaccines in Ethiopia, and a 20% reduction in uptake of the MMR vaccine (year over year) in England, among other notable disruptions. “Obstacles to the delivery of vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic drove down immunization rates, especially in disadvantaged people and poorer countries… Due to vaccine delivery interruptions related to COVID-19 restrictions, 2020 saw the first global childhood vaccination reduction in 28 years. Over 80 million children in 68 countries were affected, according to UNICEF”.

Oxford researchers (Heneghan et al.) have now published (June 30th 2021, pre-print) a paper stating among other things that “Obstacles to the delivery of vaccination services during the COVID-19 pandemic drove down immunization rates, especially in disadvantaged people and poorer countries”. We project that this will result in an epidemic of usually preventable diseases in children for years to come. This is what the lockdowns have done. Decades of hard work to bring these diseases under control has been ruined and made in vain. We seem to not care about other infectious diseases that will cause catastrophic harms to society; most importantly the health of our children.  We are acting as if SARS CoV-2 is the only disease in the world that requires elimination no matter the costs in lives and to society as a whole. Along these lines we seem to be rushing to vaccinate children for COVID-19 despite them having no appreciable risk for this disease! And to reiterate we’re doing this with the knowledge that risks for diseases that can be very devastating in children and are preventable when appropriate vaccination schedules are maintained, solely to prevent COVID-19 as if it were akin to the plague! This unscientific and failed strategy must give us pause!

We even know and knew of the catastrophic harms and toxicity due to mask use (references 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031).

Based on the last 16 months of experience, we also know and knew of the ineffectiveness of masks (references 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627, 28293031323334353637). Additionally, we know of the failure of mask mandates (references 12345678). In not one US state, nor in any nation, was there any success, any benefit whatsoever, from mask mandates! Mask use failed catastrophically in stopping transmission or deaths!

Readily accessible data show there is a near 100% probability of survival from COVID-19 for those 70 years and under. This is why the young and healthiest among us should be allowed to live their lives normally without fear from harm due to this virus. After all, this is how we have learned to live with annual influenza epidemics and it is noteworthy that unlike SARS CoV-2, the influenza virus does kill children. We must be positioned to ‘protect’ the elderly and high-risk with their naturally acquired immunity and create the much desired “herd immunity.”

It is no secret now that these ‘lockdown’ and ‘school closure’ polices had very limited value in constraining the virus – and an efficacy that has often been “grossly exaggerated” in various scientific journals. For example, epidemiologists Chin, Ioannidis, Tanner, and Cripps indicated that the lockdown policies have been extraordinarily harmful. Tierney wrote that there is no evidence that lockdowns saved lives, but rather they cost lives. The harms to children of closing in-person schooling have been dramatic and catastrophic, including extremely poor learning, elevated school dropout rates, and crushing social isolation, most of which are far worse for lower income groups. We have accelerated dementia in our seniors locked down in their senior homes, and we have driven business owners, employees, and children to self-harm, to contemplate suicide, and actually take their lives. They are not dying because of SARS CoV-2 but due to the ravages of the lockdowns.

These unparalleled public health lockdown actions were enacted for a virus with an infection mortality rate (IFR) that was roughly similar (and even turned out to be lower than that for seasonal influenza). Stanford’s John P.A. Ioannidis identified 36 studies (43 estimates) along with an additional 7 preliminary national estimates (50 pieces of data) and concluded that among people <70 years old across the world, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with a median of 0.05% across the different global locations (with a corrected median of 0.04%). Keep this in mind; 0.05%. Can one even imagine the implementation of such draconian regulations for the annual flu? Of course not! Ioannidis went further to state “people <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon”.

With a focus on lockdowns, recent evidence emerged in the Northern Jutland region in Denmark. Seven of the 11 municipalities (similar and comparable) in the region went into extreme lockdown that involved a travel ban across municipal borders, closing schools, the hospitality sector and other settings and venues (in early November 2020) while the four remaining municipalities employed the usual restrictions of the rest of the nation (moderate). Researchers reported that reductions in infection had occurred prior to the lockdowns and decreased in the four municipalities without lockdowns. Conclusion: surveillance and voluntary compliance make lockdowns essentially meaningless.

A similarly comprehensive analysis of global statistics regarding COVID-19, that was conducted by Chaudhry and company involved assessment of the top 50 countries (ranked as having the most cases of COVID-19) and concluded that “rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and widespread testing were not associated with Covid mortality per million people.” They concluded that there is (and was) no evidence that the restrictive government actions saved lives. To this date, no evidence to the contrary has emerged that favors these draconian policies previously enacted and contemplated again for the near future. When these findings are considered alongside the harms caused by these measures, it beggars the mind as to why they were ever considered in the first place. It is even more inconceivable that reintroduction of these measures is now being considered openly!

COVID-19 is amenable to risk stratification and we should have and must now, address COVID-19  based on a targeted risk factor-based approach. We can treat our way out of this pandemic, and despite the ongoing narrative, we need not vaccinate our way out of it.

We know that:

1) early treatment (outpatient) is available and works (references 123456) (see McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Kory, Vliet, Ladapo etc.). Prompt early initiation of sequenced multidrug therapy (SMDT) is a widely and currently available solution to stem the tide of hospitalizations and death from COVID-19 and it is the optimal approach to close out this pandemic. A multipronged therapeutic approach includes 1) adjuvant nutraceuticals, 2) combination intracellular anti-infective therapy, most notably doxycycline or azithromycin 3) inhaled/oral corticosteroids, 4) antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants, and 5) supportive care including supplemental oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine (as needed). The antivirals, corticosteroids, and anti-thrombotic, anti-platelet, anti-clotting drugs directly target the three phases of COVID illness (viral replication phase, hyperimmune inflammatory acute respiratory distress syndrome florid pneumonia phase, and thrombotic blood clotting phase).

2) When we put evolutionary pressures on a virus during a pandemic, it has more opportunity to mutate, and as a virus mutates the general understanding is that it becomes less dangerous or virulent; in effect it gets weaker. The Delta variant came out of India and has 7 mutations in the spike protein and one in another component of the virus. It is slightly more infectious in the test tube compared to the initial Wuhan variant but not more so in the community. “It is not three times more contagious” (Dr. Peter McCullough, personal communication, July 19th 2021, France Soir). Yet the Delta is resistant to the vaccines. But the good news is the new variants are mild (as compared to the original wild-type virus) and not lethal (mortality).  And vaccinated patients are contributing just as much as to COVID-19 counts as are unvaccinated patients (despite mainstream media claims to the contrary).  Evidently, based on existing data, the new mRNA/DNA vaccines have little to no effect against several variants including the Delta variant. This is exemplified by the fact that in the UK, 42% of 90,000 people who were infected with the Delta variant had been fully vaccinated! This suggests that the new vaccines only work partially or perhaps they do not work at all on the new variants that have been pushed to mutate away from vaccine-mediated protection in the midst of an active pandemic.

Logically speaking then there is in fact no reason to undergo vaccinations now as the vaccines really do not work against emerging variants. In relation to this, recent data from New Jersey suggests that vaccinations have not been able to fully protect against deaths as this news report suggests: Yet the exact opposite, ongoing vaccine mandates, is being recommended by our governments and their health advisors despite the groundswell of emerging evidence showing that the vaccines are more harmful than ever anticipated.

The overall rate of mortality for the COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant in the UK report is approximately 0.8% versus the 1.9% for the alpha variant. The good news is Delta is very mild for everyone whether they are vaccinated or not and the virus will eventually resemble the four common-cold coronaviruses (endemic, seasonal, mild symptoms akin to a mild cold). Vaccination is not needed to return to normal life. In the US, only 48% have taken the vaccine and it is likely that most Americans recognize that the vaccines are not optimally safe and have concerns. Moreover, the US is going back to normal life. The asymptomatic (i.e. healthy) ‘false-positive’ testing is driving the higher infection counts and this testing is driving a false narrative. If necessary, Delta is treatable with early outpatient treatment but does not pose much of a threat in any case in terms of it is very mild clinically.


We conclude not by presenting a discussion on what ‘might happen’ due to the lockdowns and school closures. We actually provided this very early on in our series of op-eds (references 12345678). Now we write after 16 months of evidence that bear out our previous warnings.

In closing, we refer to the eloquent argument put forward by Dr. Scott Atlas on the failure of lockdowns and school closures globally and the totality of the evidence presented above and AIER’s troubling compilation of the crushing costs and harms of lockdowns, it is imperative that we end all lockdowns that are still in place and do not re-engage these for this virus. It is way past time that we get life back to normal for everyone but the higher risk among us. It is time we target efforts to where they are only beneficial and no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach which always leads to great harm. Such targeted more focused measures geared to specific populations (based on age and risk) can protect the most vulnerable from COVID-19, while not adversely impacting those not at risk.

The expert officials and policy makers have failed in following their oath of office. They continue to double down on failed strategies. They continue to put the blame of ongoing SARS CoV-2 infections on those of us who opposed lockdowns and school closures. They are using a rather nefarious tactic whereby it is being claimed somehow that those who opposed and questioned these illogical and unreasonable restrictions and mandates are contrarians, dissenters, skeptics or even conspiracy theorists. And that because we have merely expressed our disagreement with the measures used that we are somehow to blame for their failure to rein in the pandemic. In so doing they are fantasizing, which then allows them to not admit that it was their policies that have led to the huge problems we face now. To reiterate, it was not our opposition and arguments against the specious, failed, and unsound policies that are the problem!

Dr. Donald A. Henderson, who helped eradicate smallpox, was a pioneer in pandemic response modeling and provided us a road map that we have failed to follow here, and seems about to fail again, when he wrote about the 1957-58 Asian Flu pandemic and stated “The pandemic was such a rapidly spreading disease that it became quickly apparent to U.S. health officials that efforts to stop or slow its spread were futile. Thus, no efforts were made to quarantine individuals or groups, and a deliberate decision was made not to cancel or postpone large meetings such as conferences, church gatherings, or athletic events for the purpose of reducing transmission. No attempt was made to limit travel or to otherwise screen travelers. Emphasis was placed on providing medical care to those who were afflicted and on sustaining the continued functioning of community and health services.” His prophetic words were crystal clear then as now!

Dr. Henderson along with Dr. Thomas Inglesby also wrote, “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.” Overall, these giants of science told us that there are several options available to governments of free societies to mitigate and ameliorate the spread of pathogens and to preserve life and societal integrity (i.e., traditional public health responses which are less intrusive and disturbing) and the closing society or parts of it, whilst enforcing the use of invalid measures (masking) is not one of them.

We agree with Dr. Martin Kulldorff (co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration) who explained that it is critical that the bureaucrats, the technocrats, the public health system, the Task Force experts, and medical experts (on television also) listen to the public who are the ones actually living and experiencing the public health consequences of their forced lockdown and other actions. The public has been omitted from any of these discussions and it is absurd and reckless given that the public seems much more aware and understanding of the pandemic. In sum, we found out that Social isolation due to the lockdowns has devastating effects and cannot be disregarded and government bureaucrats must recognize that shutting down a society leads to suicidal thoughts and behaviour and excess deaths (deaths of despair to name one). Renewed lockdowns will impose a similar harm again, we lost hundreds of thousands needlessly before. We do not need to repeat that mistake again! The very fabric of society is at risk.

It behooves us as the guardians of our future to remember these words; “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

July 24, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 3 Comments

Banned by the Twitter Totalitarians

By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | July 23, 2021

I have just been handed my second stint in the Social Media Outer Darkness by the Twitter Totalitarians. The first was because I told the truth about the experimental gene therapies masquerading as vaccines, particularly the fact that they have not completed the clinical trials (which they haven’t), and that they are causing a huge amount of adverse reactions and deaths (which they are). On that occasion I was slapped on the wrist for 12 hours, but this time — presumably to teach me a lesson good and proper — the sentence has been increased to a whole week. Will it be the death sentence next?

And the crime m’lud? This was the Tweet that did it:

“The “Covid emergency” is a manufactured crisis, held up by 2 monumental lies: Asymptomatic Transmission + Fraudulent PCR Tests. The “Pingdemic” is thus part of the same manufactured crisis. Remember that when you struggle to put food on the table.”

Bearing in mind that they allow all sorts of scandalous, libelous, hateful content on their platform, which part of this in particular did the Twitter Totalitarians think was unpalatable? Note that I did not dispute the existence of a respiratory illness, which has proved deadly to some people. What I did was to state that a “crisis” was manufactured, chiefly by the use of two falsehoods, one being the claim that healthy people with no symptoms transmit the illness to others, and the other that the RT-PCR test can diagnose infection.

On the first point, numerous studies, along with basic common sense, show that so-called asymptomatic transmission is a myth (see here and here). On the second, this document details conclusively why the RT-PCR test is unfit for use as a clinical diagnostic tool, and on one of the rare occasions this has been allowed to be tested in court, the judgement of a Portuguese court showed beyond doubt that the test is unable to detect infection and therefore not fit for purpose. Yet the Lockdowns, the masking, the bizarre restrictions, the anti-social distancing and everything else has been based on these two lies.

As for the rest of the Tweet, well the so-called Pingdemic, which magically started happening big-time on what was billed as “Freedom Day”, is downstream from these two monumental rivers of lies. The pinging of the app to tell people to self-isolate, which has then been causing whole businesses to close, is the result of the fraudulent tests and the absurd idea that people who aren’t ill can spread the illness they haven’t got. As for the food shortages? There are indeed signs of these starting to occur, and of course if they do happen on a big scale they will be blamed like everything else on Covid! Except it won’t be Covid, but the utterly unnecessary pinging of an unnecessary app, telling people to do unnecessary things, because of a manufactured crisis based on false claims.

The walls are not just closing in free speech; more than that they are closing in on truth-telling. It has been very noticeable that those getting censored have been people who have used facts and truth to challenge the manufactured crisis we’ve experienced since the start of 2020. The purpose of that manufactured crisis has been to lead humanity to a hideous dystopian Biosecurity State, run by Global Technocrats. The purpose of the censorship is to stop those who would hinder the creation of this Transhumanist Hellhole. If you can’t see either of these things yet, it really is time to wake up, since you too will have to live in the nightmare they are building for us.

July 23, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 3 Comments

The WHO Declares all PCR Tests at High CT to be Potentially 100% False Positives

By Judy Wilyman PhD | Vaccine Decisions | July 13, 2021

In December 2020 the WHO declared that any result from a RT-PCR test that was amplified at a high cycle threshold (CT) e.g. above 35 CT is potentially 100% false positive.  This leads us to question all the reported ‘cases’ of COVID19 disease  in Australia in 2020. This is because Australia has reported that it uses this PCR test at a CT of 40-45  and most of the reported ‘cases’ were people without symptoms. 

The question now is ‘What cycle threshold is the Australian government using in 2021?’ Has it been reduced at the same time as the vaccine was introduced to give the appearance that the vaccine has caused a decline in the cases of this disease?

The WHO says that in 2021 a manual readjustment of the PCR positivity threshold must be done to account for background noise in specimens with high cycle thresholds. 

There is no transparency in the use of this test that is now allowing government’s globally to claim that healthy people, without disease symptoms, are an asymptomatic case of disease. This also enables the government to claim that healthy people are a risk to society. This is criminal and this PCR test is not a diagnostic tool for any disease.

Many doctors and scientists are stating this and they are being ignored and censored. Here is the inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, also stating ‘it is not a diagnostic test‘. It should never be used when symptoms are not also present.

Traditionally doctors were taught to diagnose disease on a collection of symptoms and the PCR test was sometimes a supportive, but not a diagnostic, tool. This has all changed in 2020 to be able to claim that healthy people are now the cause of these diseases and this has been achieved without having to provide any supportive evidence for this claim.

In addition, it is these ‘cases’ that have been used by the government to enact the emergency powers. Yet the definition of a pandemic that is based on an increase in ‘cases’ of a disease has not been validated by the scientific community. It is not a scientific definition if it has not been validated by the community of scientists – not just elite individuals.

The case-tracing of healthy people with QR codes is fraudulent and it is enabling more ‘cases’ of disease to be obtained and more people to be locked up and falsely declared a ‘case’ of disease. This is industry-pseudoscience and it has all come about because the WHO allowed a small group of individuals, with financial conflicts of interest with industry, to adopt an unscientific definition of a ‘global pandemic’. 

This makes the use of the emergency powers invalid and all the directives that have been enacted to control this non-pandemic of a flu-like illness. Please read the full article describing the unscientific definition of a pandemic that has been used by governments and also watch the interview with Elizabeth Hart on Asia Pacific Today. This interview describes the full extent of the Australian government’s conflicts of interest in promoting an untested drug in the population. She also describes the complicity of the mainstream media and research institutions in this fabricated and well planned ‘pandemic’ event.

This crime against the population has also been perpetuated by governments deliberately suppressing the treatments for respiratory viruses that are known to be beneficial. Here is Craig Kelly presenting his evidence of this suppression in an empty Australian parliament. This picture illustrates the type of ‘democracy’ that we have in Australia today. The people’s voice is not being heard by our government.

In this video, Dr. David Martin explains to the International Criminal Court that there was nothing novel about the 2019 coronavirus. This is because it had been patented between 2008 – 2017 under gain of function research carried out in the US and in Wuhan, China. In addition, the fact that it was a mutated coronavirus means that humans would be expected to have some previous immunity to this virus because these are  a family of common respiratory viruses that cause the common cold.

It is now clear that this is a ‘pandemic’ in name only. This is why there is no evidence of enormous numbers of deaths and illness in the community. The WHO could not have declared this to be a ‘global pandemic’ in 2020, if the definition of a pandemic had not been changed in 2009.

The ‘cases’ of disease that the media is presenting are healthy people who have had a PCR test but have no symptoms. It is these cases in healthy people that are being used to close borders and quarantine healthy people. This is a media campaign using statistics out of context to encourage the community to accept the governments new regulations that restrict our fundamental rights and freedoms, ultimately harming our health and wellbeing.

July 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Infections in the Vaccinated Overtake Those in the Unvaccinated For the First Time – But the Graph is Removed From the ZOE App Report

By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • July 17, 2021

Health Secretary Sajid Javid has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, despite being vaccinated – and he is far from alone. The latest ZOE data shows that, as of July 12th, infections in the vaccinated (with at least one dose) in the U.K. now outnumber those in the unvaccinated for the first time, as the former continue to surge while the latter plummet (see above). (Note that 68% of the population has had at least one vaccine dose, so there are still at this stage disproportionately more new infections in the unvaccinated, though on current trends that may soon change.)

At what point will the Government accept that these vaccines have limited efficacy in preventing infection and transmission, and thus the whole rationale of being vaccinated to protect others – vaccine passports, compulsory vaccination, and so on – is suspect?

The above graph was in yesterday’s report, so I downloaded today’s report (you can get it by signing up to the app and reporting your symptoms) to get the new update. I was dismayed to find the graph was gone. At the bottom, a note explains:

Removed incidence graph by vaccination status from the report as there are very few unvaccinated users in the infection survey, the Confidence Intervals are very wide and the trend for unvaccinated people is no longer representative.

Which I would say is very convenient, just as infections in the vaccinated became the majority. Perhaps ZOE should try to recruit some more unvaccinated people for its survey, so it can continue to report on this as well as have a control group for its vaccine data? That would seem the scientific thing to do, rather than just stop reporting it because it is suddenly “no longer representative”.

It’s doubly odd because Tim Spector, lead scientist on the ZOE app, made the decline among the unvaccinated a feature of his video this week. So the realisation that the trend is “no longer representative” appears to have been rather sudden, even invalidating the contents of a ZOE ‘data release‘ two days earlier.

It seems we will never know how the story ends, which is a shame and a missed opportunity for ZOE.

ZOE data continues to suggest the current Covid surge is peaking and possibly even beginning to decline in the U.K., at least outside England (see above). Yet this is at odds with the daily Covid reports from the Government, which show continued growth.

UK positive tests by date reported (HMG)

Why the discrepancy? Is it because the Government figures include all the lateral flow tests that schoolchildren are taking as they isolate? 839,100 children – 11.2% of the total pupil population, more than one in 10 – were absent from state schools for Covid-related reasons on July 8th. All of them will have been tested and this will be picking up asymptomatic or mild infections that would usually not be noticed. ZOE data is symptom based, with a confirmatory PCR test, so would not be affected by surges in lateral flow testing among schoolchildren picking up asymptomatic infections.

Whatever the explanation, one to watch.

July 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 4 Comments