Telegraph’s Global Security Correspondents Claim No Trade Off Between Lockdowns and the Economy
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • May 12, 2021
The Telegraph‘s Global Health Security correspondents Paul Nuki and Sarah Newey claimed this morning that there is “no trade off” between the economy and public health when it comes to COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Writing in the newspaper, the correspondents (whose coverage is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) write that the “‘health v economy’ trade-off” is “false” because “countries where the virus was swiftly contained – such as Vietnam – have seen less economic damage, plus far fewer deaths”.
This claim, based on one country, fails to acknowledge that the entire South East Asian region, regardless of the measures taken, has had a much milder experience of COVID-19 than some other parts of the world, particularly Europe and the Americas. Furthermore, while it may be true that Vietnam’s early border closures produced better outcomes (there is some evidence of this), that bird has well and truly flown for most of the world so the example of Vietnam is now irrelevant as far as this pandemic is concerned.
Perhaps, though, they have a future pandemic in mind. In fact, the peer-reviewed evidence is that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic death toll (although it’s worth noting that Vietnam, which Nuki and Newey hold up as an example we should follow in future, has never imposed a full, country-wide lockdown). It’s also not clear how countries which close their borders to an endemic virus can ever hope to open them again – a problem Vietnam is currently experiencing. Vietnam is also not exactly an international global hub.
The article is part the Global Health Security team’s promotion of an agenda to give the World Health Organisation more funding and more power to declare pandemics faster and be more proactive in ensuring compliance amongst states with public health edicts. They note approvingly that the pandemic has “thrust health to the centre stage, and may be an opportunity to promote a ‘green and healthy recovery’”. They appear to like the idea of a fast-acting global government imposing lockdowns so we can all be like Vietnam and “contain” the virus quickly, supposedly without suffering economic damage despite the vast disruption to the global economy this would bring.
Nuki and Newey highlight the problem of “viral misinformation” as one of 13 “mistakes” made early in the pandemic, though they blame the internet and social media rather than the WHO, despite its part in promoting myths about the virus such as that it doesn’t spread between humans and it doesn’t spread via aerosols.
But are Nuki and Newey engaging in disseminating misinformation of their own, making the bizarre claim that public health containment strategies have no trade-off with the economy based on a single unrepresentative country? When the U.K. economy shrank by a record 9.9% in 2020, this claim is frankly ridiculous and such claims are at odds with the Telegraph’s overall coverage of the way different countries have managed the pandemic, which has been quite balanced. Should the paper really be allowing a team of journalists whose work is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to use its platform to promote an agenda of enhanced global control in the name of public health?
Why are we being lied to about Covid? There’s no good reason
By Dr Mike Yeadon | Conservative Woman | May 10, 2021
Be in no doubt, among the reasons that voices and opinions like mine are never heard in the main media is extreme censorship more suited to China than a liberal democracy. Please allow me to illustrate with an example close to my heart why it is high time for us to change our response.
Ivermectin is one of the WHO’s ‘essential drugs’ which all countries should have access to. It’s very cheap as its patent has long expired; it’s one of the most-used drugs in world history; it’s extraordinarily safe; it is often life-saving against parasitic infections. It is also one of the best-established pharmaceutical treatments for Covid-19, showing benefit in every stage of the disease, in multiple independent clinical trials of varying quality. On January 3, 2021, Dr Tess Lawrie attempted to alert the Prime Minister to the potential of ivermectin. Her video here was pulled from YouTube within hours of posting, though it survives on Vimeo. The paper by the FLCCC group of US intensivists (whose survival rates for severe Covid-19 are best in class) that was the inspiration for Dr Lawrie’s work was accepted after extensive open peer review (including two career employees of the FDA) and ‘provisionally accepted’ by the ‘open science’ journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. The screenshot of the abstract tweeted by Clare Craig shown here attracted more than 100,000 views. Then, mysteriously, it was rejected and pulled by the Frontiers editor in chief. It is still here in cached form though the Ministry of Truth has been at work and placed it in a memory hole, so no trace survives on Frontiers’ own website.
Intended for a Special Issue on ‘repurposed drugs’ for Covid-19, various guest editors were so incensed at this behaviour that they resigned in protest. You can read their letter here. They concluded that ‘these unfortunate events constitute gross editorial misconduct by Frontiers.’ Fortunately this major paper is now published by the American Journal of Therapeutics and can be read in its final form here.
This nevertheless successfully delayed by nearly six months its circulation to leading public health bodies starting mid-November. A copy was sent to Sir Jeremy Farrar (boss of the Wellcome Trust and member of Sage) who passed it on to Professor Peter Horby (also on Sage), amongst others, on November 18, 2020. So the efficacy of ivermectin must be well known to the Government’s advisers, but they have done nothing about it. Likewise, the formal and rigorous meta-analysis performed by Dr Tess Lawrie’s team at the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd has been communicated to Matt Hancock, but without reply.
I am telling you about this, because all that governments, their scientific advisers, big pharma (here’s Merck, who originally developed & marketed it) and regulatory agencies will tell you is that ivermectin doesn’t work in Covid-19. They are lying. I am inviting any of them to sue me, but they won’t, for I would win easily.
If ivermectin was more widely used, there’d be no need for vaccines.
To date, despite the brains, expertise and stature of those scientists questioning the official Covid-19 narrative, as a group they quite patently have been ineffective. And this is unlikely to change while, as polite professionals, they won’t say: ‘This is corruption and they’re lying deliberately to scare the people.’ Furthermore, unwittingly, they have been playing the parts intended by those, including our own Government and their advisers, who control the global Covid narrative.
They judged correctly that we polite Brits wouldn’t accuse them of outright lying, even though they often do exactly that. Boris Johnson’s recent piece to camera, telling us that it was lockdown and not vaccination which reduced cases and deaths, is a case in point.
Yet it’s certain this isn’t true, and also certain he and his advisers know it isn’t true.
The government’s advisers are not fools. Some may be, but the upper echelons are very smart. They believe polite people won’t say ‘not only are you lying but you’re doing it in concert with other, non-democratic actors’, because that’s conspiracy theory stuff, right? Powerful people never use their influence to benefit their interests, do they? Hmm. The only thing that’s different is scale and the power their public positions give them. Other than that, they’re just another a bunch of grubby criminals, ripping off unsuspecting people.
Truth is our most powerful tool. And that truth is that we’re being lied to.
The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it’s leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence.
First, though, the lies. It’s abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public has been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.
I offer as a shortlist that:
-PCR mass testing reasonably reliably distinguishes infected and infectious people from others;
-that masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses;
-that transmission of infection in the absence of symptoms is an important contribution to epidemic spreading;
-that lockdowns as executed reduce hospitalisation and deaths;
-that no matter how small the remaining susceptible population and no matter that virtually no people who, if infected, might die remain unvaccinated, the position is perilous;
-that no pharmaceutical treatments are available;
-that variants are different enough to warrant border closures and require new vaccines;
-that the gene-based vaccines are safe and effective;
-that ‘vaccine passports’ will increase safety while having no material impacts on freedom of choice in a liberal democracy.
It is impossible to believe that intelligent, well-connected and well-briefed senior advisers to governments don’t know that almost all, if not all, of the above are simply not true.
It is not a matter of opinion in almost all cases. These statements, which have been explicitly stated and used in justification for the extraordinary interferences in the lives of citizens in democratic countries, are mostly demonstrably wrong, as defined by there being multiple well-conducted, peer-reviewed studies showing the contrary.
To continue with the pretence that there’s scientific uncertainty, and it’s therefore understandable that an adviser might offer nuanced advice, is wrong and misleading. This perhaps is where the mainstream media has been most culpable.
It is not reasonable to expect typical viewers and readers of speeches, articles and editorials – whether by scientist sceptics or by critical commentators – to appreciate that, when we point out that what’s happening doesn’t make sense, we mean ‘the executive is knowingly and deliberately harming the country and its citizens’. We are mostly not saying this, leaving it to the audience to sum up for themselves. But in my view the audience are reluctant to do this. They want to believe in government and perhaps above all they want a quiet life. To disbelieve is so much harder than to believe.
So in recent weeks I’ve made a clear decision no longer merely to point out what it is that governments and their advisers and spokespersons around the world are doing is wrong, scientifically unjustified and harmful, but to join the dots in an attempt to provide potential explanations of why they’re doing these things.
It is time for all Doubting Thomases to take a lead and state unambiguously that ‘government and its advisers are telling us things that are manifestly untrue and maintaining restrictive, damaging measures for which there’s no justification’. By not doing so they are playing into the hands of those who I firmly believe are engaged in a determined series of crimes against humanity.
Why do I say this? Simply because there is no benign interpretation of the acts of commission and omission consistently imposed upon us and no explanation of the statements which are flatly wrong other than an intention to deceive the population.
Looking around us now, we see that the prevalence of the virus in the community is effectively zero. Note that the authorities have never conceded and determined the operational false positive rate of PCR mass testing. Subtracting any reasonable estimate of oFPR and we observe no cases at all. This was true for months as indicated by the positive rate in lateral flow tests.
No variant of the virus differs by more than 0.3 per cent from the original sequence, and numerous academic immunologists have stated strongly that there is no possibility that booster/top-up/variant vaccines are required. Yet we get daily ‘fear porn’ on this topic. The European Parliament just voted through the basic outlines of a vaccine passport system. It’s a racing certainty that the UK will soon follow.
Mask regulations continue in force and many psychologists believe some people are so traumatised that they will continue to wear them indefinitely, even though they are useless.
The economy and currency may already be damaged beyond repair. Yet there’s another six weeks minimum until the last restrictions are scheduled to be lifted.
Almost no one is dying ‘with’ Covid-19 now, and the attribution methodology overestimates this anyway. Yet hospitals and primary health care remain far less accessible than they should be, inevitably resulting in causing or storing up avoidable non-Covid-19 deaths, to say nothing of the suffering and misery of the millions awaiting treatments for painful and worrying illnesses.
Most terrifyingly, it appears we will soon be required to possess VaxPass apps if we wish to continue to access our lives.
This system can run effectively only if everyone is vaccinated. This is a monstrous concept, because it is known that all four vaccines in use in Europe contain a fatal design flaw: they cause the fusogenic, pro coagulation spike protein to be expressed wherever the vaccine is taken up. In some people, especially those so young that they’re at no measurable risk of death if infected by the virus, vaccination results in their deaths from thromboembolic events. Permitting the inexpert population to walk into this trap is unconscionable: there will be thousands of further vaccine-induced deaths of young people.
I invite thoughtful people to ask that difficult question: ‘Why are they doing this?’
It is my deduction and conclusion that the only motivation that fits all the observations is the intention to ‘herd’ every citizen into a VaxPass system. This is a completely novel system. Never before have all individuals been represented in a single, interoperable database as a unique digital ID, accompanied by an editable health-related field. Whoever controls that database, and the algorithms which govern what it permits and denies, has literally totalitarian control of the entire population. There is no personal threshold crossing or transaction which doesn’t fall to those operating that system.
At the very least, the public deserves to be warned that this is coming. I do not expect conventional judicial processes to protect us in any way. Every institution has already failed the people of the UK.
Given that numerous government decisions (as instructed by Sage) have arguably already led to many avoidable deaths, I think it’s only reasonable to consider what the prize is that leads intelligent people to do the things they’ve done and continue to peddle.
The possible answers to this question are all bad. I cannot conceive of a situation where we will shortly be permitted to resume our normal lives. There is not the slightest hint of that in any case.
I have found it impossible to come up with a benign interpretation of the events. No one works as carefully and for so long as evidently has been done, across the world, only suddenly to stop. Why? I’ve asked hundreds of people and not a single one has (a) pointed out where my logic fails or (b) come up with a benign interpretation.
My own conviction is that the purpose is, at minimum, to establish a system of totalitarian control which will mean the extinguishing of liberal democracy.
It almost doesn’t matter what the next steps might be, but they could, for example, have been sold to numerous people as the only solution to ‘anthropogenic global warming’: the amount of resources we’ll be permitted to produce and consume will be set by some unseen controllers. It is possible they could go a step further than this, and see reducing population or depopulation as another route to solving the perceived problem of AGW.
Consider the elimination of the class of the inquiring journalist, the censorship of all mass media. The relentless smearing and exclusion of those who ask too many awkward questions. The astonishing waste of public money, which apparently the foreign exchange markets are unperturbed about. The destruction of SMEs which provide a third of all jobs and a substantial proportion of tax revenues. The relentless lying. The misinformation. The use of psychological operations to frighten and subdue. The utter disregard for those vaccinated with ‘vaccines’ that are way too unsafe for their role. The bending past illegality of the use of incorrect information to persuade pregnant women to get vaccinated. The numerous breaches of the Nuremberg Code, since no one is being explicitly told that these vaccines are experimental and so recipients are being unwittingly enrolled in an unprecedentedly large and unmonitored Phase 3 clinical trial. The announcement that, soon, our minor children are to be vaccinated.
Add in the ‘top-up vaccines’. They’re not vaccines. Whoever has been vaccinated has no need of further vaccination. Immunology is perhaps my strongest suit, so I am certain of this. Is it impossible that in those one billion vials which pharma has already told us its manufacturing, there is some gene sequence which will instigate one of a few dozen pathologies, with onset times ranging from near-immediate to a short number of years? I assure you, biotechnology has awesome power, and it can be used for good or ill.
I think I’ve made a decent case that what governments and their advisers have done easily amounts to conspiracy. The same ‘mistakes’ have been made everywhere. The same tricks and manipulation. Those who claim this is all coincidence are coincidence theorists.
I argue that unless this is pointed out to the public before any possible ‘vaccine passports’ system is established, we’ve all collectively failed to discharge our duties to be courageous, to take chances, to risk looking foolish: I am absolutely committed to continuing to speak out for as long as I have breath in my body.
Venezuela: Accusations of Meddling in Colombia Protests ‘Shameful’
Colombian state violence and human rights abuses have stoked the protests in which nearly 50 have died
By Paul Dobson | Venezuelanalysis | May 10, 2021
Mérida – Venezuelan authorities have dismissed accusations that they are intervening in on-going mass protests in neighboring Colombia.
Speaking on Friday from a Miami-based forum on Defense of Democracy in Latin America, Ecuador’s President Lenín Moreno claimed that “Our [Ecuador’s] and Colombia’s intelligence agencies have detected a gross intervention from the dictatorial and authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro [in the Colombian protests] (…) We call on Maduro to remove his bloody and corrupt hands from the democracy and stability of the Colombian people.”
The outgoing right-winger went on to describe the Venezuelan president as “the great instigator and financier of the violence in Colombia,” claiming that he had authorized public payments to pay for the “intervention.”
The evidence-free accusations were quickly echoed on social media by rightwing former Colombian Presidents Andrés Pastrana and Álvaro Uribe, with the latter writing that “They [the Maduro administration] are destroying Colombia, which has a future, in order to construct another Venezuela or Cuba, which do not.”
Following Moreno’s comments, Colombian Defense Minister Diego Molano claimed a “strong” Venezuelan participation in the protests, referencing the arrest and deportation of six Venezuelan citizens allegedly participating in the protests over 10 days ago. There are an estimated 1.7 million Venezuelans living in Colombia, many of which have denounced frequent xenophobic attacks against them.
While Colombian President Iván Duque is yet to comment on the alleged “intervention,” his government decided to take action against Argentina and Cuba over the weekend, accusing them of meddling and expelling a Cuban diplomat from the country.
Both Duque and Moreno recognize US-backed self-declared “Interim President” Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. They also belong to the Lima Group, a regional ad hoc organization of right governments which have previously made similar accusations of Venezuelan incitement, financing or involvement in mass protests across the region, including in Colombia (2019 and 2020), Ecuador (2020), Bolivia (2019), Chile (2019 and 2020) and the United States (2020), all of which were rebutted by Caracas.
In response to the latest claims, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza described the accusations as “shameful,” going on to say that the accusers were “underestimating their people.” He also quoted Spanish poet Antonio Machado, writing via Twitter that “Lies are the most destructive weapon used by fascism.”
For his part, Chavista number two Deputy Diosdado Cabello likewise downplayed the accusations, questioning Colombian intelligence capabilities. “They couldn’t even investigate Operation Gedeon – the failed maritime incursion which happened a year ago and was planned in Colombia – but they can conclude that we [supposedly] have people there. Get out of here!” he said.
Culture Minister Ernesto Villegas chimed in as well, pointing out the hypocrisy of the accusations in comparison to Duque’s 2019 call for Venezuelan soldiers to rebel against the Maduro government.
Colombia has been rocked by a wave of popular protests and strikes since April 28, with government sources claiming 27 people have died. Independent organizations have placed the figure as high as 47, with around 800 injured and more than 400 missing.
The protests were initially organized to oppose a fiscal reform which increased the poor’s tax burden. In efforts to quell the protests, Duque withdrew the reform last Sunday and Finance Minister Alberto Barrera resigned.
However, widespread police brutality, as well as accumulated grievances based around the state’s noncompliance with the 2016 Peace Agreement and other human rights violations have stoked the mass demonstrations. Despite ongoing dialogue, the protests have continued, with Duque authorizing state agencies to use “all necessary force” against them on Monday.
Reports of widespread state violence and human rights abuses have been denounced by a range of Venezuelan leftwing movements, including at a piquet outside the Colombian Consulate in Caracas on Friday.
The rally, which featured the Popular Revolutionary Alternative (APR) bloc and a number of other leftist forces, came in addition to a number of activities in solidarity with the Colombian people held across the country. Solidarity events also took place in a number of other Latin American cities, including Buenos Aires, Santiago and La Paz.
Venezuela and Colombia have had a tense relationship over past years, with diplomatic relations broken and borders closed in 2019. Recent border skirmishes have resulted in a number of deaths, with the Venezuelan government pointing to Colombian “irregular armed groups.” Additionally, Caracas has accused it neighbor’s government of backing regime change attempts, including the 2018 drone attack against Maduro, the 2019 attempted ‘humanitarian’ border incursion, the 2020 Operation Gedeon, and a 2021 foiled terrorist plot, amongst others.
Craig Murray Jailed for Eight Months for Contempt of Court Over Alex Salmond Trial
Sputnik – 11.05.2021
The High Court in Edinburgh has jailed former British diplomat-turned-whistleblower Craig Murray for eight months for contempt of court.
The charge related to Murray’s alleged “jigsaw” identification of the identities of protected witnesses in the trial of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
But Murray will remain free for three weeks while his lawyers submit an appeal against his conviction.
Sentencing Murray on Tuesday, 10 May, Lady Leeona Dorrian said his actions “strike at the heart of the fair administration of justice” and created a risk of people alleging sexual offences might not want to come forward in future.
Murray believed the prosecution of Salmond was politically motivated and he blogged extensively throughout the trial.
Salmond faced a raft of sex allegations but was acquitted by a jury of all of the charges against him.
The former SNP leader later accused his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, of influencing the prosecution against him and earlier this year he set up his own party, Alba, which ran in the Scottish Parliament elections last week but only won two percent of the vote. Salmond failed to get elected as an MSP.
Murray was charged with three offences:
· Publication of material that creates a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the jury in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981;
· Reporting on the exclusion of two jurors in violation of a court order “preventing publication of the details of the issues raised by the Advocate Depute on 23 March 2020” as they related to the jurors’ removal; and
· “Jigsaw identification” of alleged victims who testified against Salmond.
The allegation of jigsaw identification argued that Murray’s articles, individually or in conjunction with other articles and material that can be obtained via Google and social media, could indirectly result in a member of the public determining the identity of alleged victims in the Salmond case.
The Government argued in favour of a wide interpretation of jigsaw identification, meaning that a journalist might violate the law if a person with intimate knowledge of the case could piece together the identity of a protected witnesses. Murray’s lawyers argued that such an interpretation would be unfair and would violate the Article 10 rights of journalists and the public.
See also: The World Darkens a Little More: I May Have to Spend Some Time as a Political Prisoner
DECLARATION OF CANADIAN PHYSICIANS FOR SCIENCE AND TRUTH
The Declaration
We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of our various Provinces and Territories and to the Public at large, whom we serve.
On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19. 1
The CPSO then went on to threaten physicians with punishment – investigations and disciplinary action.
We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.
As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.
When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:
1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself: The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.
We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.
2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients: By ordering us not to debate and not to question, the CPSO is also asking us to violate our pledge to our patients that we will always seek the best, evidence-based scientific methods for them and advocate vigorously on their behalf.
The CPSO statement orders physicians for example, not to discuss or communicate with the public about “lockdown” measures. Lockdown measures are the subject of lively debate by world-renown and widely respected experts and there are widely divergent views on this subject. The explicitly anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration – https://gbdeclaration.org – was written by experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities and more than 40,000 physicians from all over the world have signed this declaration. Several international experts including Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), David Katz (Yale), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) continue to strongly oppose lockdowns.
The CPSO is ordering physicians to express only pro-lockdown views, or else face investigation and discipline. This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.
3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent: The CPSO is also ordering physicians to violate the sacred duty of informed consent – which is the process by which the patient/public is fully informed of the risks, benefits and any alternatives to the treatment or intervention, before consent is given.
The Nuremberg Code, drafted in the aftermath of the atrocities perpetrated within the Nazi concentration camps – where horrific medical experiments were performed on inmates without consent – expressly forbids the imposition of any kind of intervention without informed consent.
In the case of the lockdown intervention for example, physicians have a fiduciary duty to point out to the public that lockdowns impose their own costs on society, including in greatly increased depression and suicide rates, delayed investigation and treatment of cancer (including delayed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy), ballooning surgical waiting lists (with attendant greatly increased patient suffering) and increased rates of child and domestic abuse.
We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.
By ordering physicians to be silent and follow only one narrative, or else face discipline and censure, the CPSO is asking us to violate our conscience, our professional ethics, the Nuremberg code and the scientific pursuit of truth.
We will never comply and will always put our patients first.
The CPSO must immediately withdraw and rescind its statement of 30 April 2021.
We also give notice to other Canadian and international licensing authorities for physicians and allied professions that the stifling of scientific inquiry and any order to violate our conscience and professional pledge to our patients, itself may constitute a crime against humanity.
1 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21). https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544
The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.
Signatures
- Anne Shannon
- Andrea Roy
- Adam Salt
- Alexandre Guay
- Andrea Zaretsky
- Andrew Mahon
- annkwist@rogers.com Kwist
- Antonio Coffa
- Deno Gettas
- Beata G
- Bernard de Souza
- Beth Lindhorst
- Karen Mackey
- Bruce McKay
- Ron Bublitz
- Carla Dancey
- Deb Mair
- ROBERT PAQUETTE
- Christine Pohanka
- Cindy Create
- Claire Gosselin
- Corinne Mackenzie
- Barbara & David Schmidt
- Judith Robinson
- Donna Cuomo
- Deborah Kay
- Julia McLaren
- Dwayne Vann
- Emma Sattar
- Dave Thompson
- Elizabeth Romanowska-Konsik
- Darlene Elias
- Elizabeth Balcar
- Erin Beckman
- Richard Caviedes
- Chris Filby
- Pat Brown
- Rachel Vlietstra
- Greg Schmalz
- Gerard Lamontagne
- Freya Godard
- Ken Roberson
- Blaine Goodine
- Grazyna Sanchez
- Mary Hale
- Anja Reich
- Silvia engels
- Helke Ferrie
- Vicki Samson
- Laura Peterson
- Michelle Greenwell
- Jackie Beninato
- Jake Hoheisel
- Jan Fiss
- Jeff Graham
- Jennifer LONERGAN
- Judy Symington
- Janine Jalbert
- Jordyn Kaye
- Jeremy McKee
- Julie Montpetit
- Kathleen Perry
- Kathy Braun
- Katia Rodrigues
- Keith Baxter
- Cheryl Leite
- Larissa Flanagan
- Laurie Fetherstonhaugh
- Lauren Annez
- Sharon Leonard
- Lorraine Struyk
- larry hachey
- Linda Winger
- Luciano Perna
- Madeleine Menard
- Marissa Secord
- Marlena Murray
- Marnee Stern
- Lori McKay
- Michael Germain
- Michele Mihalik
- Michelle Losier
- Marlee Moore
- Nancy Chown
- Nikki Pulla
- Norma Ford
- Nicoline Lentze
- Nigel Bell
- Melodie VanderWal
- Colleen Roberts
- Pamela Velos
- Rick Hayter
- Rochagné Kilian
- Dale & Roeli Lutz
- ronald beaulieu
- Sarah MacInnis
- Sarah Pollard
- Sara Pahlevan
- Sabina SARGEANT
- Stephanie Cheung
- Sebastian Rozdzynski
- Sherry Lee
- Jacinthe Phillips
- Sophie Hawkins
- Steve Foget
- Sue Timmermans
- sydney felker
- Taron Puri
- Christine Simpson
- Tibor Finesz
- Lara Doucette
- Thomas J Tassé
- Thomas Russell
- Erica Tratch
- Summer Hanes
- Uwe Grunert
- Valerie Debicki
- Vladikir Gagachev
- Verna Hutchinson
- Roger Baird
Laurence Fox Threatens Met Police & Calls Them “Thugs”
By Richie Allen | May 10, 2021
In a series of extraordinary tweets, the actor turned politician Laurence Fox called the Metropolitan Police thugs and said that there would be trouble if they kept returning to his house for no reason.
Yesterday, police visited his home for the second time in two months. The officers said they had received reports of a party at the actor’s address. He says he was having dinner with his father.
Fox tweeted that the police presence had made his daughters cry and that officers should go and solve knife crime. The Reclaim Party leader was previously visited by Met Police officers in March ahead of the City Hall elections.
The officers warned him then, that his campaigning could be in breach of lockdown restrictions. Fox filmed the encounter and shared it online.
We really are here now. The police really are knocking on doors to count the number of people in your home, in your private residence. Maybe the Met police should rename themselves the stasi.
Even more worrying for me, is that there’s no outrage. Look at Twitter. Rather than pile-on the police for behaving like Nazi’s, users prefer to mock Fox and his family and call him a racist.
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, woke workers ensure that books with ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
By Frank Furedi | RT | May 10, 2021
The publishing industry is encouraging grass roots censorship and increasingly giving in to employees who demand that certain views should never be able to be expressed – especially those involving trans issues.
It looks like publishing is fast becoming a career choice for ambitious would-be censors. The most aspiring and aggressive wing of the grass-roots censorship movement is the lobby policing publications dealing with trans-related issues. Recently a group of individuals from across the publishing industry associated with this lobby wrote a letter to The Bookseller demanding the censoring of books that it deems unfavourable to its cause.
The main point of the letter is to claim that trans culture cannot be a subject of debate and that publishers should prevent opinions that run counter to it from being published. It states:
“Transphobia is still perfectly acceptable in the British book industry. Our industry excuses it, says that to view transgender individuals as having less than full human rights is OK and an opinion as valid as others. Our industry is still very comfortable about giving this form of prejudice a powerful platform. We need to step away from the paradigm that all opinions are equally valid.”
The demand to reject the paradigm that all opinions are valid is a roundabout way of saying that ‘invalid’ opinions can be legitimately censored and authors who hold such views should be cancelled and silenced.
Calls for censorship by freelance inquisitors working in publishing have also been busy in the United States. Employees at Simon & Schuster recently filed a petition insisting that the publisher sever its ties with writers associated with the Trump administration. The petition, signed by 216 employees, gained the support of over 3,500 external supporters, including well-known black writers such as the two-time winner of the National Book Award for Fiction, Jesmyn Ward.
When well-known writers join the queue of enthusiastic censors, it becomes evident that American literary culture is in trouble.
One of the targets of the Simon & Schuster inquisitors is a two-book deal that the company signed with former Vice-President Mike Pence. Since they believe that Pence’s opinions are not as valid as theirs, shutting down one of the leading voices of the Republican Party is a public service to society.
One of the most disturbing features of the inquisitorial movement in the publishing industry is the casual manner with which it seeks to corrupt the ideals of tolerance and free speech.
It is worth noting that the letter sent to The Bookseller is titled ‘The Paradox of Tolerance’. Since it rejects tolerance for views with which it disagrees – it states, “it is clearly not appropriate to say simply ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’” – it should be titled ‘The Case for Intolerance’!
The hypocrisy of the supporters of censorship in publishing was highlighted in June 2020, by a group called Pride in Publishing. It wrote a circular, ‘Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not: An open letter to the industry from Pride in Publishing’. The aim of this letter was to support employees at Hachette Children’s Books who objected to working on JK Rowling’s latest book. Rowling – the author of the Harry Potter series – had in these employees’ opinion committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to accept the definition of sex and gender promoted by trans activists.
The letter stated: “Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not. Free speech does not entitle an author to a publishing contract. But it does protect the right of a worker to raise the alarm when they’re asked to participate in something that can cause them or someone else harm or trauma. Transphobic authors are not a protected group. Trans and non-binary people are.”
In British law, those using words that express hostility towards so-called protected groups with protected characteristics – such as race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender status and disability – can be charged with a hate crime. The implication of Pride in Publishing’s statement is that the right to exercise free speech is qualified in circumstances when it is directed at a protected group. This letter also highlights what has become one of the most distinctive features of 21st century linguistic policing – the diseasing of free speech.
In effect, the implication of the Pride in Publishing statement is that Rowling’s book represents a threat to the safety and mental health of the trans and non-binary people working at Hachette. It states that “employees should never have to work on content which is detrimental to their mental health or which causes them unnecessary turmoil.” This sentiment echoes the widely held view which insists that verbal and published communications are a potential hazard to people’s well-being and therefore need to be regulated to protect certain groups from offense, psychological trauma, and mental health problems.
This medicalisation of free speech, leading to its diseasing, has become one of the most effective arguments used for undermining freedom of expression.
Activists have, in effect, reinforced their call for censorship by claiming that the publication of invalid opinions by authors who offend them causes them psychological distress and trauma.
The publishing industry has recognised that its new generation of employees do not expect to work with material that upsets them. David Shelley, the CEO of Hachette, and Clare Alexander, a literary agent, recently told a Lords Committee that new recruits into the publishing industry must be warned that they may have to work on books by people they don’t agree with!
That publishers need to warn employees that they may have to work with authors whose views they dislike highlights the precarious position of free expression and tolerance in this industry.
Once upon a time, publishers were worried about the threat posed by state censorship and feared provoking the wrath of authoritarian censors from above. Today the publishing industry has become complicit in acquiescing to cancel culture, and the pressure to police what the public gets to read comes from below, from a new generation of intolerant employees.
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, fragile, and woke workers are determined to ensure that ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.
The American Cyber Stasi Will Suppress All Digital Dissent In Biden’s Dystopia
By Andrew Korybko | One World | May 7, 2021
The dystopian hellhole that I predicted would become a fait accompli following Joe Biden’s confirmation as President by the Electoral College is quickly becoming a reality after CNN’s recent report that the US’ security services are considering contracting the services of so-called “researchers” as a legal workaround for spying on average Americans. According to the outlet, these ostensibly independent contractors would be charged with infiltrating the social media circles of white supremacists and other supposedly terrorist-inclined domestic forces within the country. The report claims that the intent is to “help provide a broad picture of who was perpetuating the ‘narratives’ of concern”, after which “the FBI could theoretically use that pool of information to focus on specific individuals if there is enough evidence of a potential crime to legally do so”.
In other words, the US’ security services essentially want to establish a “Cyber Stasi” of “fellow” citizens who spy on one another and produce purported “evidence” of “potential crimes” for “justifying” the FBI’s “legal” investigations. CNN quoted an unnamed senior intelligence official who asked, “What do you do about ideology that’s leading to violence? Do you have to wait until it leads to violence?”, thereby hinting that this initiative might likely be exploited to stop so-called “pre-crime”, or crimes before they occur. Put another way, even those average Americans who practice their constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of speech to peacefully dissent against the Democrats’ consolidation of their de facto one-party rule of the country might find themselves targeted by the security services depending on how the contracted “researchers” spin their words.
It should be remembered that even Americans’ constitutionally enshrined right to the freedom of assembly is nowadays under scrutiny depending on the stated reason behind their planned peaceful protests if they dare to propose gathering in opposition to last year’s alleged voter fraud for example. The events of 6 January were exploited as a game-changer by the security services in order to restrict Americans’ freedoms. It’s neither here nor there whether one sincerely believes that the election was stolen since the purpose in pointing these double standards out is to prove that average Americans are being politically discriminated against with the implied threat of legal intimidation when it comes to exercising their constitutional rights about “politically incorrect” issues of concern to them.
Although the reported purpose of the “Cyber Stasi” is to preemptively thwart emerging domestic terrorist plots, it can’t be discounted that the combination of political Russophobia and “mission creep” will combine to create additional objectives such as stopping the spread of so-called “Russian disinformation” throughout society. That phrase is actually just a euphemism for “politically incorrect” facts and interpretations thereof that contradict the Democrats’ official narrative of events, being intentionally vague enough to function as an umbrella under which to cover practically every alternative understanding possible. With this in mind, those average Americans who dare to share something “politically incorrect” – even in private chats amidst the presence of “deep state” infiltrators (“researchers” employed as “Cyber Stasi”) – might be targeted by the FBI.
The end effect is that the US’ security services might succeed in suppressing most expressions of digital dissent in the coming future. They’re inspired to do so by the ruling administration which wants to impose a syncretic system of economic leftism and social fascism onto the country. It’s not “communist” in the sense that the economic vision is more akin to state capitalism than traditional Marxism, but the social impact will certainly mirror that of East Germany during its darkest days of Stasi rule, though that’s precisely why many critics casually describe it as “communist” despite that not being economically correct (at least not yet). The US’ “researcher”-contracted “Cyber Stasi” will have a chilling effect how Americans interact with one another from here on out, all in order for Biden’s dystopian hellhole to avoid the fate of its predecessor, East Germany.
COVID-19: Just the Facts
By Will Jones | Lockdown Sceptics | May 9, 2021
Twelve key questions about COVID-19 and lockdowns answered. All answers fully referenced from peer-reviewed research and leading authorities.
How deadly is COVID-19?
Stanford Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology John P. A. Ioannidis in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation has reviewed data from studies globally and estimated that the infection fatality rate (IFR) of COVID-19 is around 0.15%. It varies considerably by region (for reasons such as demographics and prior susceptibility) and between countries within regions. In Europe and the Americas it is around 0.3%-0.4%. In Africa and Asia it is around 0.05%.
It also varies considerably between ages and depending on the presence of underlying conditions. Cambridge Professor of Statistics David Spiegelhalter has used the mortality data from the spring 2020 epidemic in England and Wales to show that the risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection roughly increases by 12-13% for each year older, doubles every 5-6 years and is around 10,000 times higher for the oldest compared to the youngest. It is also roughly equivalent to the normal risk of dying in a given year (though is mostly in addition to that normal risk). Men have around double the risk of death of women of the same age.
The average age of death from Covid in England and Wales in the spring epidemic was 80.4 according to the ONS, splitting 78.7 for men and 82.5 for women. The average age of death in the UK is 79.3 for men and 82.9 for women (though note these are modelled estimates of life expectancy at birth based on life tables, not the actual average age of those who die each year). Public Health England has estimated that life expectancy was reduced by 1.3 years for men and 0.9 years for women in 2020 due to the Covid and lockdown death tolls, though these figures are also modelled.
Economist John Appleby writing in the BMJ has shown that every year prior to 2009 was more deadly than 2020 in England and Wales once the size and age of the population is taken into account. The same analysis also shows that previous pandemics have not resulted in continued elevated death rates for more than a year or two despite not having vaccines for the diseases, indicating how the human immune system and the diseases adapt into a less deadly relationship.
A Swedish review of Covid deaths outside hospitals (i.e., in care homes and private homes) in one county found 85% were from a different underlying cause. In Northern Ireland, 38% of Covid deaths in spring 2020 were determined to be not primarily due to COVID-19. However, the same figure in England and Wales was 8%, suggesting significant differences in how Covid deaths are registered between jurisdictions.
How is COVID-19 spread?
According to the most up-to-date data, COVID-19 primarily spreads via aerosols that build-up in the air of a room rather than via larger droplets or through contact with surfaces (fomites). This is why many of the measures taken to combat the spread of COVID-19, such as distancing, barriers, face masks (see below) and cleaning surfaces are ineffective. Outdoor transmission is very rare.
Public Health England has used data from the Government testing programme to show that the secondary attack rate (proportion of contacts who catch the virus from an infected person) in private homes is around 10.1%. An American study in JAMA found it was 16.6%.
The low secondary attack rate in the high-exposure context of private homes is indicative of high levels of pre-existing immunity to the disease, as discussed in the BMJ by Peter Doshi. Note that immunity is not binary – a person can be resistant on one occasion and not resistant on another, for a variety of reasons. Cross-reactive T-cells that provide a measure of immunity have been found in a number of studies in 20-50% of unexposed people. Exposure without detectable infection (detectable by a PCR test) has also been found to induce a degree of T-cell immunity.
Infection with COVID-19 has been shown in a number of studies, including one on U.S Marines published in the Lancet, to confer natural immunity that gives around 80% protection from re-infection and 90% protection from symptomatic re-infection, with ten times lower viral load (corresponding to infectiousness).
What about asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission?
Asymptomatic infection is typically characterised by a much lower viral load and consequently much lower infectiousness. The study in JAMA on household secondary attack rate (SAR) cited above found that asymptomatic infections had a SAR of just 0.7% versus a SAR of 18% for symptomatic infection. The proportion of infections that are asymptomatic increases among those with immunity from previous infection or vaccination, showing that it is a characteristic of immunity.
People become infectious around two days prior to onset of symptoms as viral load peaks. This pre-symptomatic transmission is estimated to account for around 6.4% of spread, according to a study of actual transmission events from Singapore. Modelled estimates of the contribution of pre-symptomatic spread appear to go too high.
This means that people without symptoms, whether asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic, are not major drivers of the epidemic.
Do lockdowns work?
Restrictions on social contact, such as stay-at-home orders, business closures and gathering limits, have consistently been shown in peer-reviewed studies to have had no significant impact on outcomes such as Covid infections and deaths. Here is a sample, with a key quote from each.
- “Full lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine (Lancet) 25 (2020) 100464, July 21st, 2020.
- “We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behaviour, and small but adverse effects on the economy.” “Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Christopher R. Berry, Anthony Fowler, Tamara Glazer, Samantha Handel-Meyer, and Alec MacMillen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, April 13th, 2021.
- “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate.” “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, November 19th, 2020.
- “Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.” “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. CESifo Economic Studies March 29th, 2021.
- “While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs.” “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P.A. Ioannidis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 5th, 2021.
Studies which conclude otherwise are invariably based on models rather than data.
Professor Simon Woods, a mathematician, has shown that infections were in decline prior to the start of all three lockdowns in England.
You can find a useful round-up of the studies showing lockdowns don’t work at AIER.
Does social distancing work?
Many studies (including some of those above) which conclude that lockdowns don’t work nonetheless add that voluntary social distancing practices do reduce infections or deaths by suppressing spread. However, this is typically stated without supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence on this is also quite weak.
An international comparison study in Nature by R.F. Savaris and colleagues found that actually staying at home (measured by mobile phone mobility data) made no significant difference to outcomes either. “We were not able to explain the variation of deaths per million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analysed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline,” they wrote. “In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.”
The fact that transmission is mainly via aerosols that build-up in the air of a room means that keeping a physical distance from people makes little difference to risk. A study from MIT used a model of viral dynamics to show that physical distancing makes no significant difference to transmission risk in indoor spaces.
Social distancing doesn’t have a significant impact on infections or deaths for a number of reasons.
Firstly, much of the spread, especially which leads to serious infection and death, is nosocomial, i.e., it occurs in care homes and hospitals. According to data from the ONS, 39% of Covid deaths in England and Wales in spring 2020 were care home residents. According to Public Health Scotland, between half and two thirds of serious Covid infections during the winter were picked up in hospital.
Second, not everyone is staying at home, even when they’re unwell. ONS figures show that nearly half of people in the U.K. travelled to work during the January lockdown. A major survey from King’s College London found that less than half of those with symptomatic Covid fully self-isolated during their infectious period.
Because social distancing does not significantly suppress viral spread, there is no reason to expect a large new wave of infections when social distancing practices are eased or ended. This aligns with the experience of states in the U.S. such as Florida, Texas and South Dakota which ended restrictions or never imposed them and did not experience noticeably worse outcomes than states which maintained them.
Are lockdowns harmful?
Lockdowns are extremely harmful to human health and well-being, leading to large reductions in access to healthcare, education and sources of social support, and considerable reductions in economic activity resulting in large-scale losses of earnings and livelihoods.
A U.K. Government report estimated that the first lockdown would kill at least 63,000 people through missed medical care and worsened economic conditions. It argued this loss of life was justified because COVID-19 was predicted to kill directly up to 1.5 million people or around 2.2% of the population. However, this figure is many times higher than the death toll in any country on earth no matter how lax its response. The worst affected country as of May 8th 2021, Hungary, has lost less than 0.3% of its population with COVID-19 according to official data. Sweden, with looser restrictions, has lost less than 0.14%.
The UK economy shrank by almost 10% in 2020, the largest annual fall on record.
UK national debt has also jumped considerably during the pandemic to £2.1 trillion.
Lockdowns take a toll on mental health. The ONS estimates that the proportion of UK adults experiencing some form of depression is “more than double” what it was before the pandemic, increasing from 10% in 2019 to 21% in 2020.
The United Nations has estimated that disruption in healthcare services caused by government responses to COVID-19 in Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (home to some 1.8 billion people) may have led to 239,000 maternal and child deaths. Of these, an estimated 228,000 were children under five, who are at very low risk from the virus.
The United Nations has also estimated that an additional 207 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty over the next decade due to the long term impact of lockdowns.
A website has been created by the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration to document some of the harms of lockdowns called Collateral Global.
Are the vaccines effective?
The vaccines, particularly the mRNA vaccines such as Pfizer’s, appear to be effective at preventing COVID-19 infection. They succeed in producing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. They appear to give a level of protection comparable to that provided by infection (80-90%). A Public Health England study suggested they cut transmission rates in half after one dose.
However, among those groups who are most vulnerable to the virus they appear to be significantly less effective. A Danish study in nursing homes found that the Pfizer vaccine (often the best performing vaccine) was reduced to 64% effectiveness at preventing COVID-19 among fully vaccinated care home residents. A German study found a third of those over 80 fully vaccinated with the Pfizer jab did not generate antibodies.
Some coronavirus variants are showing signs of partial escape from vaccine-induced immunity. The AstraZeneca vaccine, for example, was found to be only 21.9% effective against the South African variant. The need for regular boosters tailored to new variants has been suggested.
Are the vaccines safe?
A number of safety concerns have been raised about the vaccines, some of which have led to some of the vaccines being restricted or removed in some countries.
The U.S. vaccine adverse effects reporting system (VAERS) has generated reports of deaths linked with Covid vaccinations at a rate 30 times greater than with flu vaccinations (although the number of deaths associated with flu vaccines is very low). Hundreds of serious adverse reactions have been reported in the UK.
A major study in the UK reported “an abundance of patients admitted to hospital within seven days of vaccination”.
The vaccines involve using genetic instructions to induce the body to produce the virus’s spike protein. However, there are concerns that the spike protein is itself pathogenic. One study reported that: ”The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (without the rest of the viral components) triggers cell signalling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodelling and pulmonary arterial hypertension as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications.” The spike protein by itself was shown to harm the lungs of mice.
There is also evidence that a Covid vaccination programme can cause a spike in infections. The association of vaccination programmes and Covid surges in a number of countries has been discussed in the pages of the BMJ. Dr. Clare Craig has argued against it being behaviour based (people letting their guard down) and pointed to the results from the vaccine trials which showed a reduction in white blood cells in the days following the jab that may indicate temporary immune suppression.
The risk-benefit calculation for Covid vaccination has been acknowledged by leading figures including Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty to be different for those who are at lower risk from the disease, particularly the young. In the U.K., the AstraZeneca vaccine is no longer recommended for those under 40.
Do masks work?
Because transmission of COVID-19 is primarily via aerosols building up in the air of indoor spaces, face masks have little to no impact on risk of infection or transmission. This is because even surgical masks do not filter out enough infected aerosols to be considered respiratory protection devices. In addition, aerosols routinely escape with breath around the sides of the mask.
Accordingly, studies consistently find no significant benefit from wearing masks. The Danmask-19 randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that surgical masks provide no significant protection for the wearer from COVID-19 infection. This is in line with other RCTs for other similar viruses. One, published in autumn 2020, concluded face masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection”.
The Government’s scientific advisers admit masks are little use to the wearer, saying they “may provide a small amount of protection to an uninfected wearer; however, this is not their primary intended purpose”. Rather they are “predominantly a source control” (preventing transmission). The advisers cite the findings of a study by Brainard et al, which reviews a number of RCTs and concludes surgical masks provide the wearer with protection from just 6% of infections. The same study’s review of RCTs for masks as source control finds no evidence above low quality.
Yinon Weiss has plotted real-world data to show there is no sign of mask mandates altering the course or size of Covid epidemics in countries and states around the world.
Are masks safe?
A number of studies raise concerns about the safety of face masks used daily and for long periods.
A study in Water Research has called for a “full investigation” into the safety of face masks, after detecting easily detached particles of microplastics and heavy metals. “The toxicity of some of the chemicals found and the postulated risks of the rest of the present particles and molecules, raises the question of whether DPFs [disposable plastic face masks] are safe to be used on a daily basis.”
Professor Michael Braungart, head of the Hamburg Environmental Institute, has warned: “Many of them are made of polyester, so you have a microplastic problem. If I have the mask in front of my face, then of course I inhale the microplastic directly and these substances are much more toxic than if you swallow them, as they get directly into the nervous system,”
The World Health Organisation highlights a number of potential harms and risks of prolonged mask use in its guidance, including contamination, skin lesions and headaches.
A study in Clinical Research in Cardiology, “Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity“, finds significant impact on lung function from wearing a mask during exercise: “The pulmonary function parameters were significantly lower with mask… the ventilation was significantly reduced with both face masks… Peak blood lactate response was reduced with mask. … Participants reported consistent and marked discomfort wearing the masks.”
Face masks have been found to be a transmission risk, with infectious virus remaining on the mask for several days.
There are also important psychological consequences from frequent and widespread mask wearing.
Are effective treatments available?
A number of treatments have been used by clinicians around the world that appear to have some beneficial impact on treating COVID-19. Among the most promising are Ivermectin, as detailed in the American Journal of Therapeutics, and Budesonide, as detailed in the Lancet. The safety profile of these well-established drugs is well-known and not controversial.
What should governments have done?
The UK Government has a Pandemic Preparedness Strategy, drafted in 2011 in line with international ethical norms and scientific evidence. It is primarily for an influenza pandemic, but also envisages a SARS-like pandemic and anticipates up to 315,000 deaths, most in the space of a few weeks. It primarily recommends hand hygiene and self-isolation of the infected. It does not recommend school closures, border closures, business closures, face masks in the community or bans on large gatherings. It aims to encourage “business as usual”, stating:
During a pandemic, the Government will encourage those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives for as long and as far as that is possible, whilst taking basic precautions to protect themselves from infection and lessen the risk of spreading influenza to others. The UK Government does not plan to close borders, stop mass gatherings or impose controls on public transport during any pandemic. …
Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of ‘normality’ and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic. The social and economic consequences of advising cancellation or postponement of large gatherings are likely to be considerable for event organisers, contributors and participants.
The Government should have followed this strategy, as it was doing until around March 16th 2020, and not been pressured into deviating from it. It should have recognised that no pandemic has caused elevated mortality for more than a year or two and maintained a sense of proportion.
That said, the strategy is notably silent on the role of hospitals and care homes in spreading the virus (nosocomial spread). It includes no special provisions for protecting care home residents, hospital patients, or any other vulnerable category. It could therefore be improved by considering how focused protection, as advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration, could reduce deaths among the vulnerable. It could also give more consideration to how infected patients could be more effectively isolated from uninfected patients in hospitals.
It should also place more emphasis on quickly finding effective treatments besides vaccines, especially repurposed drugs which are readily available and whose safety profile is known.
The Biden Administration Wants to Partner with Criminals to Spy on You
By Thomas Knapp | CounterPunch | May 6, 2021
“The Biden administration,” CNN reports, “is considering using outside firms to track extremist chatter by Americans online.”
Federal law enforcement agencies are legally and constitutionally forbidden to monitor the private activities of citizens without first getting warrants based on probable cause to believe those citizens have committed, or are committing, crimes. The feds can browse public social media posts and so forth, but secretly trawling private groups and hacking encrypted chats is off-limits.
Private companies and nonprofit civic organizations, not being government entities, don’t need warrants or probable cause to access those private discussion areas. The administration’s bright idea is that through partnership with these non-government entities, they can get around legal and constitutional barriers: “WE didn’t collect the information. THEY collected the information, then gave it to us.”
There are several flies in that ointment. Here’s a big one:
It’s entirely understandable that — to use an entirely hypothetical example — someone with the Southern Poverty Law Center might impersonate a fictional white supremacist to get into a private Ku Klux Klan chat room and see what those people are up to.
But the US Department of Justice says it’s illegal (under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) to evade terms of service with false identities.
A government partnership with an organization that gathers information in that way is no different than the government partnering with a burglar to find out what you have in your house, without the bother of convincing a judge there’s probable cause to issue a search warrant. It is, quite simply, criminal conspiracy.
As with so many political and social issues arising in the Internet age, we’re coming up against a big question that urgently needs answering:
At what point does “working with” government amount to “being part of” government?
Much of the “private” tech sector makes big money on government contracts. NBC News reports, based on a 2020 Tech Inquiry expose, that Microsoft enjoys thousands of subcontracts with the US Department of Defense and federal law enforcement. Amazon has more than 350 such subcontracts with agencies like ICE and the FBI. Google, more than 250.
What about the “nonprofit” sector? According to the National Council of NonProfits, 31.8% of nonprofit revenues are tied to government grants and contracts.
When these entities do things FOR government, they should be held to the same standards and limits AS government. And those standards and limits should put our freedom and privacy first.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org).
Texas Medical Doctors Testify Before State Senate to Oppose Mandatory COVID Shots
By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | May 8, 2021
This past week the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs took testimony from Texas physicians regarding SB 1669: Stop Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in Texas.
SB 1669 was sponsored by Senator Bob Hall.
You can learn more about this bill at the National Vaccine Information Center’s Advocacy Portal (registration required.)
Here is some of the text provided to the public regarding Senate Bill 1669:
Contact your Texas State Legislators and Demand No Forced Vaccination, No Vaccine Passports, No Exceptions – Support SB 1669
Mandated vaccination in Texas with COVID-19 vaccines will be the reality unless the legislature takes decisive action now. In fact, it has already started happening.
Houston Methodist Hospital has told its 26,000 employees to get vaccinated by June 7th or get fired. Atria Senior Living, which has 16 facilities in Texas, is requiring all employees to receive 2 COVID-19 vaccines by May 1, 2021 as a condition of employment or face termination.
The city of Farmer’s Branch, Texas is requiring COVID-19 vaccination to access the city run facility called The Branch Connection. Forget taking a cruise with Royal Caribbean from Texas unless you’ve been COVID-19 vaccinated. St. Edwards University in Austin became one of the first colleges to mandate COVID-19 vaccines.
This is just the beginning.
Governor Abbott’s Executive Order Prohibiting COVID-19 Vaccine Passports Falls Short at Protection
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been quoted saying that in Texas, COVID-19 vaccines “are always voluntary and never forced.”
The truth is Executive Order GA 35 falls short at preserving the right of law-abiding Texas citizens to be able to function normally in society without having to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination.
EO GA 35 only prohibits the government, or public or private entities funded by the government, from requiring documentation of an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status. This does nothing to prohibit businesses not receiving government funding from banning customers who don’t have a COVID-19 vaccine. Also, this executive order fails to give any protection to employees whose employers are requiring COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment.
In addition, the limited protections offered in EO GA 35 will be short lived because the order only applies to “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUA) COVID-19 vaccines. Once a vaccine has received full FDA approval, the EUA designation no longer applies and therefore neither will any protection in this executive order including the ban on forced vaccination by the government. Full FDA approval will be soon. Moderna, the manufacture of one of the 3 available COVID-19 vaccines, is already seeking full FDA approval, and Pfizer, one of the other manufacturers, announced it would seek full approval in the first half of 2021.
Governor Abbott’s executive order also falls short when compared to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s executive order banning vaccines passports which additionally prohibits all business from requiring COVID-19 vaccination status or post infection recovery status to gain access to or service from the business, and it applies to all COVID-19 vaccines instead of expiring after full FDA approval is achieved. It also protects personal privacy rights by prohibiting the government from publishing or sharing a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status to third parties.
Texans Need a Law Passed to Protect them From Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports (If you want to immediately see what you can do to help pass SB 1669 into law in Texas scroll down to “Action Needed)”
We are grateful to announce that Texas history has been made with the filing of
SB 1669 in the Texas Legislature by Senator Bob Hall.SB 1669 prohibits discrimination or segregation based on vaccination or immune status and prohibits forced vaccination in all areas of your life.
We need your help getting SB 1669 moving as the bill is currently stalled awaiting a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Legislators need to be educated about the shortcomings in Governor Abbott’s executive order and the vulnerabilities for mandated vaccination in Texas based on current law so they can pass this bill or amend parts of it onto other bills.
This is by far the most comprehensive bill prohibiting mandated vaccination in all areas that could affect your life including government orders, employment, healthcare, education, access to businesses, access to events and venues like sports and concerts, long-term care, nursing homes, insurance, and childcare.
Read more at the National Vaccine Information Center’s Advocacy Portal.
Senator Bob Hall, in his opening statements at the Senate hearing this week stated:
The chief responsibility and Constitutional role of our government is to protect the rights of the individual. Employees can take off their helmets, masks, and uniforms at the end of the work day, but they cannot remove a vaccine.
Dr. Richard Bartlett was the first physician to testify in favor of SB 1669 to Stop Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in Texas.
Dr. Bartlett has over 28 years of medical practice experience and is a veteran primary care and emergency room doctor in West Texas.
Dr. Bartlett is best known since the COVID crisis started as a doctor who has cured many patients using an older, already FDA approved drug, called budesonide, which is an inhaled corticosteroid. (Learn more here.)
During his testimony, Dr. Bartlett explained that there are existing treatments already available to treat COVID patients, making it unnecessary to mandate experimental new “vaccines.”
He pointed to a recent Oxford University study just published that showed 90% success rate in using inhaled budesonide with COVID patients in preventing long-term care or hospitalization.
From the Oxford study:
The STOIC study found that inhaled budesonide given to patients with COVID-19 within seven days of the onset of symptoms also reduced recovery time. Budesonide is a corticosteroid used in the long-term management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Findings from the phase 2 randomised study, which was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), were published on the medRxiv pre-print server.
The findings from 146 people – of whom half took 800 micrograms of the medication twice a day and half were on usual care – suggests that inhaled budesonide reduced the relative risk of requiring urgent care or hospitalisation by 90% in the 28-day study period. Participants allocated the budesonide inhaler also had a quicker resolution of fever, symptoms and fewer persistent symptoms after 28 days. (Source.)
Dr. Bartlett works in the Emergency Room, and he stated that there are very few patients coming in now with COVID, but “I am now seeing more people come in (to the ER) who are having complications from the COVID shot.”
And Dr. Bartlett points out that these are mostly younger people who were in excellent health before the shot, since Dr. Bartlett works in Lubbock, Texas, which is a college town.
Dr. Ben Edwards of Veritas Medical in Lubbock, Texas, was the next physician to give testimony in favor of SB 1669 to Stop Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in Texas.
Dr. Edwards received his degree from Baylor University, and later graduated from UT-Houston Medical School. He moved to Waco to complete his training at the Waco Family Practice Residency Program where he was Chief Resident. He now operates three clinics in West Texas.
Dr. Edwards stated his concern that “the forced and coerced COVID-19 vaccinations would, in my opinion, be a violation of the Nuremberg Code,” as well as several other international codes on bioethics and human rights.
He cited the fact that the CDC is now reporting 4,178 deaths reported to VAERS, while for the previous 20 years combined there were 4,182 deaths recorded from all vaccines.
He also pointed out that a Harvard Study has previously estimated that only about 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are ever reported to VAERS. Two other subsequent studies showed the same thing.
In his own practice, Dr. Edwards stated that he has received “numerous reports within hours of receiving the COVID vaccines that people have suffered strokes, heart attacks, pulmonary embolisms (blood clots), and sudden death.”
Dr. Edwards went on to cite research which shows that those with natural immunity to COVID (they already had it) will see a 2 to 3 fold increase risk of adverse reactions from the COVID shots.
Over half of Texans now have this natural immunity. He stated:
On a personal note, I believe that God gave us an amazingly robust immune system, and I don’t think you can improve on God.
The next physician to testify in favor of SB 1669 to Stop Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in Texas was Dr. Amy Offutt from St. Marble Falls, TX.
Dr. Offutt is trained in Integrative Medicine. She was recently appointed by Governor Greg Abbott to the Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome Advisory Council. In addition, she serves on the Board of Directors for ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society).
Dr. Offutt is another physician who has been successfully treating COVID patients with existing early treatment protocols.
She testified:
As of last Friday, my practice has treated 579 acutely ill patients as old as 98 years of age, with only ten hospitalizations and one dead.
The man who died presented on the 12th day of illness was a transplant patient and had already been to the ER multiple times before seeking care from us. This was such an unnecessary tragedy.
Dr. Offutt believes that “informed consent is the core to shared decision making in medicine.”
The next physician to testify in favor of SB 1669 to Stop Forced Vaccination and Vaccine Passports in Texas was Dr. Angelina Farella from Webster, TX.
Dr. Farella is a pediatrician with over 25 years experience. She started out her testimony to the Senate Committee by stating:
I am here today to protect our children in Texas. This is a very scary situation that we are in right now.
Dr. Farella stated that as a pediatrician she has given out tens of thousands of vaccines, and that she is not “anti-vaccine,” but:
I am against this COVID vaccine, if we can even call it that (a vaccine.)
What we are doing to our children with this vaccine is actually criminal.
All of these physicians are “frontline physicians” who actually treat patients, but their clinical experiences in treating COVID patients is being censored by the corporate media, and ignored by the government and Big Pharma, in favor mass vaccination instead.
Here is their testimony. This is from our Rumble Channel, and it is also on our Bitchute Channel.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Who Runs Our World?
Netanyahu addresses US Congress
By Richard Hugus | January 4, 2019
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli telecom networks used for mass surveillance across countries
- US claim of sinking Iranian boats ‘a lie’, senior military official tells IRIB
- New KC-46 Supertankers Promise Israel Conventional Samson Option Strike Сapability
- No, New York Times, We Don’t Need to Dam the Bering Strait
- Gates-Funded ‘Big Catch-Up’ Delivers 100 Million Vaccine Doses — Including High-Risk DTP Vaccine Not Used in U.S.
- No commercial ship or oil tanker transited Strait of Hormuz in past hours: IRGC
- Russia warns of escalating NATO military activity in Baltic region
- Government Kills the Spirit
- How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again
- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- If Americans Knew
- As in Gaza, Israel is targeting rescue workers in South Lebanon, killing more than 100 since March
- Israel’s Obliteration Ecocide from Gaza to Lebanon and Beyond
- Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.
- New Member of Trump’s Iran Negotiating Team Comes From Notoriously Pro-Israel Think Tank
- Israeli army demolishes Christian monastery, nuns’ school in southern Lebanon
- Tokenizing Christians In Israel
- One Gaza is not enough: Israel is turning southern Lebanon into another Gaza – Daily Update
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 