Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

NJ Governor Phil Murphy ‘Cannot Conceive’ Of Ending Mask Mandate

By Tom Woods | March 26, 2021

You’d think Phil Murphy, governor of New Jersey — which has the worst COVID death rate of any American state — would have the decency to keep his mouth shut on the subject. Well, you’d be wrong. When asked about Texas’ decision to repeal its statewide mask mandate, Murphy replied that he was “stunned” and that he “couldn’t conceive of lifting a mask mandate inside.”

How about we see how both states are doing?

(Source: nytimes .com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html)

Well, how about that.

California, meanwhile, has seen its numbers come way down from their peak. They are of course pretending that their lockdown did the trick. The problem is this: Nevada didn’t lock down as much and Arizona locked down even less, and yet:

(Source: nytimes .com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html)

On January 20, Germany mandated medical-grade masks. That must have done it, right?

Well, as it turns out, Angela Merkel recently sought an even more barbaric lockdown, even after instituting that mandate, although thankfully she had to back down. I wonder why those medical masks didn’t solve the problem:

(Source: World Health Organization)

Today on Twitter a notorious Doomer cited east/southeast Asia’s numbers as evidence that the public-health recommendations work (but of course those countries tried all different approaches and every one worked fine, so just maybe there’s something else going on here?).

Cambodia has not had a single death. Is that because of Cambodia’s state-of-the-art public-health establishment? Cambodia was number 83 among countries in terms of pandemic preparedness.

I did see this headline, from Reuters : “Cambodian Villagers Trust Magic Scarecrows to Ward Off Coronavirus.”

(Don’t knock it: it’s much cheaper than anything Fauci has recommended, and it seems to have worked for Cambodia.)

Overall, I do think the tide is at last turning in our direction. But you’re still surrounded by crazy people.

March 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Wiki Wonka and the Covid-19 Factory

Dr. Sam Bailey | March 23, 2021

Australian medical doctor, Sam Bailey, examines the consensus viewpoint about COVID19 published on the most-used consensus website. Wikipedia.

While Dr Bailey agrees Wikipedia is often unreliable, it is a good barometer of what most people believe.

Here, a qualified medical expert takes a critical look at the good and bad information being put out about the coronavirus pandemic,

Follow me on Odysee (go on you know you want to!) ▶https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c

References: 

1. Simple Wikipedia – Coronavirus disease 2019: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cor…​ 

2. WHO – https://www.who.int/emergencies/disea…​ 

3. The continuing 2019-nCoV epidemic threat of novel coronaviruses to global health: https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1…​ 

4. Virus Mania (see online suppliers below)

5. WHO – Coronavirus disease Q&A: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disea…​

6. Wikipedia – Coronavirus disease 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronav…​ 

7. Wall Street Journal, Feb 26, 2021 (Pay-walled): https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-hunt-…​ 

8. New York Times https://web.archive.org/web/202102282…​ 

9. SARS-CoV-2 Isolate Truth Fund: https://www.samueleckert.net/isolat-t…​ 

10. Wikipedia – Symptoms of Covid-19: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptom…​ 

11. Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID‐19: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…​ 

12. ECDPC – Clinical characteristics of COVID-19: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-1…​ 

13. FAZ article, 16 March 2020 – “We discovered new symptoms” (German): https://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellsch…​ 

14. The neurological manifestations of COVID-19: a review article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti…​ 

15. Eckhart Tolle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuJxE…

March 26, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Bloomberg Op-Ed: “We Must Start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic”

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | March 25, 2021

Bloomberg has published an article by Andreas Kluth which argues that new variants of COVID-19 mean the pandemic will be “permanent” and that there will be an “endless cycle” of restrictions.

Kluth says that the idea the world will at some point go “back to normal” is “almost certainly wrong” and that SARS-CoV-2 will become “our permanent enemy, like the flu but worse.”

The author cites “the ongoing emergence of new variants that behave almost like new viruses” which means that “we may never achieve herd immunity” because current vaccines are “powerless against the coming mutations.”

“If this is the evolutionary trajectory of SARS-CoV-2, we’re in for seemingly endless cycles of outbreaks and remissions, social restrictions and relaxations, lockdowns and reopenings,” says Kluth. “At least in rich countries, we will probably get vaccinated a couple of times a year, against the latest variant in circulation, but never fast or comprehensively enough to achieve herd immunity.”

Despite the fact the global population has been hit with worse pandemics which at the time it had far less medical expertise to deal with and eventually got over them, Kluth somehow thinks that won’t be the case with COVID.

Kluth is by no means the first to suggest that the pandemic won’t end for years if ever.

In his book Covid-19: The Great Reset, World Economic Forum globalist Klaus Schwab asserts that the world will “never” return to normal, despite him admitting that coronavirus “doesn’t pose a new existential threat.”

A senior U.S. Army official also said that mask wearing and social distancing will become permanent, while CNN’s international security editor Nick Paton Walsh asserted that the mandatory wearing of masks will become “permanent,” “just part of life,” and that the public would need to “come to terms with it.”

Earlier this week, we highlighted the comments of Mary Ramsay, the head of immunisation at Public Health England, who said that restrictions would remain in place for years.

March 26, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Professor: Britain Can’t Be Held To Ransom By Vaccine Refuseniks

By Richie Allen | March 24, 2021

Writing in the Daily Mail today, Brendan Wren, Professor of Vaccinology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said that “a third wave caused by vaccine refuseniks would devastate our return to normality.” He also said that “there is no excuse” for not having a vaccine. He writes:

… a worryingly high proportion of British people will continue to refuse the jab — preventing us reaching the crucial ‘herd immunity’, whereby the virus cannot spread because it cannot find enough people to infect.

We know, for example, that more than three million over-55s — including half a million over-65s — have still not been vaccinated, even though all are eligible and could surely have had the vaccine if they wanted it.

In both Britain and Europe, the costs of this vaccine hesitancy are now all too clear. France’s history of ‘anti-vax’ thinking — up to 60 per cent of French people have previously said they wouldn’t take a Covid jab — is now surely playing its part in the country’s third wave.

Here, we know, sadly, that vaccine hesitancy is particularly high in certain sections of the black, Asian and minority ethnic [BAME] communities.

Wren goes on to say that while he “ordinarily baulks” at the idea of compulsory vaccination, he does support making covid jabs mandatory for care workers. He then writes that Britain cannot be held to ransom by refuseniks:

Though I do not believe we are there yet, a third wave caused by vaccine refuseniks would devastate our return to normality. Britain cannot be held to ransom because of a minority who don’t understand the value of the vaccines, risking their own health and that of others in the process.

There it is. We, who will never take their experimental medicines, which are already causing real harm, will be blamed for delaying the exit from lockdown. We’ll be blamed for future lockdowns too. They’ll use every trick in the book, to get us to roll up our sleeves.

We know that Covid Status Certificates or Vaccine Passports are a reality. That’s effectively mandating by coercion.

Now a leading scientist is saying that the country cannot be held to ransom by refuseniks. This will lead to families, friends and neighbours falling out and singling out those of us who won’t have a jab. It’s going to get uglier, that’s for sure.

March 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Lockdown One Year On – It doesn’t work, it never-worked & it wasn’t supposed to work

Light up the lone candle on the saddest birthday cake in the world! The most destructive public policy of the century is growing up and doesn’t look like slowing down.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | March 23, 2021

And so we come to March 23rd, and lockdown’s first birthday. Or, as we call it here, the longest two weeks in history.

1 year. 12 calendar months. 365 increasingly gruelling days.

It’s a long time since “2 weeks to flatten the curve”, became an obvious lie. Sometime in July it turned into a sick joke. The curve was flattened, the NHS protected and the clapping was hearty and meaningful.

… and none of it made any difference.

This was not a sacrifice for the “greater good”. It was not a hard decision with arguments on both sides. It was not a risk-benefit scenario. The “risks” were in fact certainties, and the “benefits” entirely fictional.

Because Lockdowns don’t work. It’s really important to remember that.

Even if you subscribe to the belief that “Sars-Cov-2” is a unique discrete entity (which is far from proven), or that it is incredibly dangerous (which is demonstrably untrue), the lockdown has not worked to, in any way, limit this supposed threat.

Lockdowns. Don’t. Work.

They don’t make any difference, the curves don’t flatten and the R0 number doesn’t drop and the lives aren’t saved (quite the opposite, as we’ve all seen).

Just look at the graphs.

This one, comparing “Covid deaths” in the UK (lockdown) and Sweden (no lockdown):

Or this one, comparing “Covid deaths” in California (lockdown) and Florida (no lockdown):

From Belarus to Sweden to Florida to Nicaragua to Tanzania, the evidence is clear. “Covid”, whatever that means in real terms, is not impacted by lockdowns.

Putting the entire population under house arrest doesn’t benefit public health. In fact, it’s (rather predictably) incredibly counter-productive.

The damage done by shuttering businesses, limiting access to healthcare, postponing treatments and diagnoses, postponed surgeries, increasing depression, soaring unemployment and mass poverty has been discussed to death. The scale of the impact cannot be overstated.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19, said this of lockdowns back in October:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…]just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry… look what’s happening to small-holding farmers […] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A terrible, global catastrophe. A doubling of childhood malnutrition.

The “pandemic” didn’t do that, lockdowns did that. They were never going to achieve their stated aims. And what’s more, they were never intended to achieve those aims.

Too often soft language in the media talks about “misjudgments” or “mistakes” or “incompetence”. Supposed critics claim the government “panicked” or “over-reacted”. That is nonsense. The easiest, cheesiest excuse that has ever existed.

“Whoops”, they say, with an emphatic shrug and shit-eating grin “I guess we done messed up!”. Unflattering, but better than the truth.

Because the truth is that the government isn’t mistaken or scared or stupid…they are malign. And dishonest. And cruel.

All the suffering of lockdown was entirely predictable and deliberately imposed. For reasons that have nothing to do with helping people and everything to do controlling them.

It’s been more than apparent for most of the last fifty-two weeks that the agenda of lockdown was not public health, but laying the groundwork for the “new normal” and “the great reset”.

A series of programmes designed to completely undercut civil liberties all across the world, reversing decades (if not centuries) of social progress. A re-feudalisation of society, with the 99% cheerfully taking up their peasant smocks “to protect the vulnerable”, whilst the elite proselytise about the worth of rules they happily admit do not apply to them.

And we’ve all had lives ruined and a year of precious time wasted. For nothing. You’ve been locked up for two weeks that lasted 365 days. For nothing.

…or rather, for everything. Because that’s what they are trying to take from us. Everything. And the only way to stop them is not to let them. To simply refuse consent.

Let’s not let lockdown get a second birthday.

March 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Hearing Loss, Tinnitus & Vertigo Linked To Covid – “Scientists”

By Richie Allen | March 22, 2021

UK scientists have claimed that hearing loss and vertigo may be caused by coronavirus. Researchers from The University of Manchester and Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, compiled data from 24 studies.

They believe that 7.6 per cent of people infected with covid experience hearing loss, while 14.8 per cent suffer tinnitus. They also believe that 7.2 per cent of coronavirus patients develop vertigo.

Speaking to SKY News, Professor Kevin Munro, director of the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness said;

“There are big implications for clinical services if this means there could be a big increase in the number of people coming forward. There are some people who say the symptoms are ongoing. There are others who say it seems to have settled down a bit so there are lots of unknowns right now.”

In other words it’s just more scaremongering by UK scientists enabled by a totally inept media. Temporary hearing loss isn’t uncommon. It can be caused by a variety of viruses including the common cold, exposure to loud noises, a build-up of fluid, earwax or an ear infection.

SKY News acknowledged on its website:

The researchers’ data primarily used self-reported questionnaires or medical records to obtain coronavirus-related symptoms, rather than the more scientifically reliable hearing tests.

It’s garbage dressed up as science. No self-respecting journalist would touch it. They’ve previously linked coronavirus to depression, heart palpitations, hearing voices, sore toe, memory loss and rashes. They use terms like “may” or “might” and the media publishes as if it’s a fact.

Covid-19 is harmless to nearly everybody. It has a 99.7 per cent survival rate. The average age of someone dying WITH it, is 83. Yet every other day a scientist claims that covid may lead to other serious conditions. The evidence is always anecdotal. That isn’t science.

The reason for this is obvious. The public is waking up to the fact that covid isn’t nearly as dangerous as it was led to believe. The public wonders why society hasn’t reopened. Therefore, the public needs to be scared into complying and having the vaccines.

This isn’t about a virus. By now, the most vulnerable people in the UK have been vaccinated. We were told it was all about them. They’ve had their jabs and yet the government will not end the lockdown.

Now scientists are claiming that mask wearing and social distancing may be with us for years. See my previous article. Apart from a few Tory backbenchers, there is no opposition to any of it.

This week, the government will ask parliament to permit it to extend powers to impose restrictions until September 25th. This despite Boris Johnson’s stated aim to remove most restrictions by June 21st. Labour and The Liberal Democrats will wave it through.

Life will never return to the way it was in January 2020. It was never meant to.

March 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Twenty Five Years Of Settled Science

By Tony Heller | Real Climate Science | March 17, 2021

“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

― Mark Twain

Twenty five years ago, experts blamed a huge snowstorm in New York on global warming.

TimesMachine: January 14, 1996 – NYTimes.com

In 2000, experts said snow was a thing of  the past.

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.”

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – Environment – The Independent

In 2003 experts said skiing was doomed because global warming was going to make it too hot to snow.

Reading Eagle – Google News Archive Search

On the rocks: the grim forecast for winter sports as global warming increases | World news | The Guardian

This story was repeated in 2012.  Skiing was doomed because of global warming.

Climate Change Threatens Ski Industry’s Livelihood – The New York Times

And now experts say record cold and snow is caused by global warming, and they predicted it all along.

Record Northeast snow totals could be connected to climate change – The Washington Post

But the reality is that September-March snowfall has been increasing for 50 years, and climate academics and journalists are science fiction writers with no connection to reality.

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

This is what I saw when I stepped outside this morning.

March 21, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

The Great Reset is Here: Follow the Money

By F.William Engdahl – New Eastern Outlook – 19.03.2021

The top-down reorganization of the world economy by a cabal of technocratic corporativists, led by the group around the Davos World Economic Forum– the so-called Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030– is no future proposal. It is well into actualization as the world remains in insane lockdown for a virus. The hottest investment area since onset of the coronavirus global lockdowns is something called ESG investing. This highly subjective and very controlled game is dramatically shifting global capital flows into a select group of “approved” corporate stocks and bonds. Notably it advances the dystopian UN Agenda 2030 or the WEF Great Reset agenda. The development is one of the most dangerous and least understood shifts in at least the past century.

The UN “sustainable economy” agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. This time they are preparing the Klaus Schwab WEF Great Reset by steering hundreds of billions and soon trillions in investment to their hand-picked “woke” companies, and away from the “not woke” such as oil and gas companies or coal.

What the bankers and giant investment funds like BlackRock have done is to create a new investment infrastructure that picks “winners” or “losers” for investment according to how serious that company is about ESG—Environment, Social values and Governance. For example a company gets positive ratings for the seriousness of its hiring gender diverse management and employees, or takes measures to eliminate their carbon “footprint” by making their energy sources green or sustainable to use the UN term. How corporations contribute to a global sustainable governance is the most vague of the ESG, and could include anything from corporate donations to Black Lives Matter to supporting UN agencies such as WHO.

The crucial central goal of ESG strategists is to create a shift to inefficient and costly alternative energy, the Zero Carbon promised utopia. It is being driven by the world’s major financial institutions and central banks. They have created a dazzling array of organizations to drive their green investing agenda.

In 2013, well before the coronavirus, the major Wall Street bank, Morgan Stanley, created its own Institute for Sustainable Investing. This was soon expanded in 2015 when Morgan Stanley joined the Steering Committee of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF). On its website they state,

“PCAF is based upon the Paris Climate Agreement’s position that the global community should strive to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and that society should decarbonize and reach net zero emissions by 2050.”

By 2020 the PCAF had more than 100 banks and financial institutions including ABN Amro, Nat West, Lloyds Bank, Barcylays, Bank of America, Citi Group, CIBC, Danske Bank and others. Several of the PCAF member banks have been indicted in money laundering cases. Now they sense a new role as virtue-models to change the world economy, if we are to believe the rhetoric. Notably, former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney is an “Observer” or consultant to the PCAF.

In August 2020 the PCAF published a draft standard outlining a proposed approach for global carbon accounting. This means the bankers are creating their own accounting rules for how to rate or value a company’s carbon footprint or green profile.

The Central Role of Mark Carney

Mark Carney is at the center of reorganizing world finance to back the UN 2030 green agenda behind the WEF Davos Great Reset, where he is a member of the Board of Trustees. He also is Adviser to the UN Secretary General as United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action. He has described the PCAF plan as follows:

“To achieve net zero we need a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models, develop credible plans for the transition and implement them. For financial firms, that means reviewing more than the emissions generated by their own business activity. They must measure and report the emissions generated by the companies they invest in and lend to. PCAF’s work to standardise the approach to measuring financed emissions is an important step to ensuring that every financial decision takes climate change into account.”

As Governor of the Bank of England Carney played a key role getting world central banks behind the Green Agenda of the UN 2030 scheme. The major central banks of the world, through their umbrella Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basle, created a key part of the growing global infrastructure that is steering investment flows to “sustainable” companies and away from those like oil and gas companies it deems “unsustainable.” When then-Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was head of the BIS’ Financial Stability Board (FSB) he established something called Task-force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) in 2015.

The central bankers of the FSB nominated 31 people to form the TCFD. Chaired by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, it included in addition to BlackRock, JP MorganChase; Barclays Bank; HSBC; Swiss Re, the world’s second largest reinsurance; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, mining giant BHP and David Blood of Al Gore’s Generation Investment LLC.

Anne Finucane, the Vice Chair of the Bank of America, a member of both the PCAF and the TCFD, noted, “we are committed to ensuring that climate-related risks and opportunities are properly managed within our business and that we are working with governments and markets to accelerate the changes required… climate change presents risks to the business community, and it is important for companies to articulate how these risks are being managed.”

The Bank of America vice chair describes how they assess risks in its real estate loan portfolio by assessing, “… acute physical risk analysis on a sample portfolio of Bank of America residential mortgages across the US. Each property was given a score based on the level of risk associated with 12 potential hazards: tornado, earthquake, tropical cyclone, hailstorm, wildfire, river flood, flash flood, coastal flood, lightning, tsunami, volcano, and winter storm.” As well, the banks’ investment “risk” in oil and gas as well as other industrial sectors is reviewed using the criteria of Carney’s TCFD. All risks are defined as related to CO2, despite the fact there is no conclusive scientific proof that manmade CO2 emission is about to destroy our planet by global warming. Rather evidence of solar activity suggests we are entering an unstable cooling period, Grand Solar Minimum. That’s of no concern to the financial interests who stand to reap trillions in the coming decade.

Another key part of the financial preparation for the Great Reset, the fundamental transformation from a high-energy intensity economy to a low and economically inefficient one, is the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). SASB says it “provides a clear set of standards for reporting sustainability information across a wide range of issues… “ This sounds reassuring until we look at who makes up the members of the SASB that will give the Climate-friendly Imprimatur. Members include, in addition to the world’s largest fund manager, BlackRock (more than $7 trillion under management), also Vanguard Funds, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, State Street Global, Carlyle Group, Rockefeller Capital Management, and numerous major banks such as Bank of America and UBS. Many of these are responsible for the 2008 global financial collapse. What is this framework group doing? According to their website, “Since 2011, we have been working towards an ambitious goal of developing and maintaining sustainability accounting standards for 77 industries.”

Where this is all going is to create a web of globally-based financial entities who control combined wealth including insurance and pension funds into what they claim to be worth $100 trillion. They are setting the rules and will define a company or even a country by the degree of carbon emission they create. If you are clean and green, you potentially get investment. If you are deemed a carbon polluter as the oil, gas and coal industries are deemed today, the global capital flows will disinvest or avoid funding you. 

Hydrocarbons Under Attack

The immediate target of this financial cartel is the backbone of the world economy, the oil, coal and natural gas sector. Oil industry analysts predict that over the next five years or less investment flows into the world’s largest energy sector will fall dramatically. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” BlackRock’s chairman and CEO Larry Fink wrote in his 2021 letter to CEOs. Blackrock is the world’s largest investment group with over $7 trillion to invest. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.”

“To continue to attract capital, portfolios have to be built around core advantaged assets – low-cost, long-life, low carbon-intensive barrels,” said Andrew Latham, Vice President, Global Exploration at WoodMac, an energy consultancy.

The Biden Administration is already making good on his pledge to phase out oil and gas by banning new leases in Federal lands and offshore and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The oil and gas sector and its derivatives such as petrochemicals are at the heart of the world economy. The 50 largest oil and gas companies in the world, including both state-owned and publicly traded companies, recorded revenues of about $5.4 trillion in 2015.

As a new Biden Administration pushes their ideological opposition to so-called fossil fuels, the world will see a precipitous decline in oil and gas investment. The role of the Davos globalists and the ESG financial players are out to guarantee that. And the losers will be us. Energy prices will skyrocket as they did during the recent Texas blizzards. The cost of electricity in industrial countries will become prohibitive for manufacturing industry. But rest well. This is all part of the ongoing Great Reset and its new doctrine of ESG investing.

In 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “… one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” The WEF Great Reset is not simply a big idea of Klaus Schwab reflecting on the economic devastation of the coronavirus. It has been long planned by the money masters.

March 21, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

When doctors drink the Kool-Aid

Scott Jensen | March 19, 2021

When doctors drink the Kool-Aid, it’s not a good thing. Patients deserve better. Anybody who glibly claims that science supports their perspective should transparently support their position.

March 20, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

The Disease Models Were Tested and Failed, Massively

By Phillip W. Magness | AIER | March 19, 2021

One year ago this week the world embraced a lockdown strategy premised on the epidemiology modeling of Imperial College-London (ICL). In a March 16, 2020 report by physicist and computer modeler Neil Ferguson, the ICL team predicted catastrophic death tolls in the United Kingdom and United States unless both countries adopted an aggressive policy response of mandating social distancing, school and business closures, and ultimately sheltering in place.

Ferguson’s model presented a range of scenarios under increasingly restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Under its “worst case” or “do nothing” model 2.2 million Americans would die, as would 510,000 people in Great Britain, with the peak daily death rate hitting somewhere around late May or June. At the same time, the ICL team promised salvation from the coronavirus if only governments would listen to and adopt its technocratic recommendations. Time was of the essence to act, so President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson both listened. And so began the first year of “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

It took a little over a month before we saw conclusive evidence that something was greatly amiss with the ICL model’s underlying assumptions. A team of researchers from Uppsala University in Sweden adapted Ferguson’s work to their country and ran the projections, getting similarly catastrophic results. Over 90,000 people would die by summer from Covid-19 if Sweden did not enter immediate lockdown. Sweden never locked down though. By May it was clear that the Uppsala adaptation of ICL’s model was off by an order of magnitude. A year later, Sweden has fared no worse than the average European lockdown country, and significantly better than the UK, which acted on Ferguson’s advice.

Pressed on this unexpected result, ICL tried to distance itself from the Swedish adaptation of its model in May. The records from the March 21st supercomputer run of the Uppsala team’s projections belie that assertion, linking directly to Ferguson’s March 16th report as the framework for its modeling design. But no matter – the ICL team’s own publications would soon succumb to a real-time testing against actual data.

A second ICL report, attempting to model the reopening of the United States from lockdowns, wildly exaggerated the death tolls that were expected to follow. By July, this model too had failed to even minimally correspond to observed reality. ICL attempted to save face by publishing an absurd exercise in circular reasoning in the journal Nature where they invoked the unrealized projections of their own model to supposedly “prove” multiple millions of lives had been saved by the lockdowns. That study soon failed basic robustness checks when the ICL team’s suite of models were applied to different geographies.

Another team of Swedish researchers then noticed oddities in the ICL team’s coding, suggesting they had modified a key line to bring data from their own comparative analysis of Sweden into sync with other European countries under lockdown after the models did not align. A published derivative of this discovery showed that ICL’s own attempts to validate the effectiveness of its lockdown strategies does not withstand empirical scrutiny.

Finally, in November, another team of researchers from the United States compared a related ICL team model for a broader swath of countries against five other international models of the pandemic, examining the performance of each against observed deaths. Their results contain a stunning indictment: “The Imperial model had larger errors, about 5-fold higher than other models by six weeks. This appears to be largely driven by the aforementioned tendency to overestimate mortality.”

The verdict is in. Imperial College’s Covid-19 modeling has an abysmal track record – a characteristic it unfortunately shares with Ferguson’s prior attempts to model mad cow disease, swine flu, avian flu, and countless other pathogens.

After a year of model-driven lockdowns, we may also look back to the original March 16, 2020 report to see yet another failure of its predictive ability. Recall that this is the model that fueled the alarmist rush to shut everything down last March, all to avert a 2.2 million death toll that would presumably peak around June.

(Source: Imperial College Report #9, March 16, 2020)

As noted above, the 2.2 million figure for the US (and corresponding 510,000 figure in Britain) were “worst case” scenarios in which the pandemic ran its course. According to the underlying theory of the ICL model, these catastrophic totals could be reduced by the adoption of NPIs – the escalating suite of social distancing measures, business and school closures, and ultimately full lockdowns that we observed in practice over the last year.

Aside from its 2.2 million worst case scenario, ICL offered no specific projections for how its proposed mitigation measures would work in the United States. Ferguson did however tell the New York Times on March 20, 2020 that a “best case” American scenario would still yield “about 1.1 million deaths,” giving us a glimpse of what he believed to be possible under NPI mitigation. The March 16th report similarly “predict[ed] there would still be in the order of…1.1-1.2 million in the US” under the most optimistic mitigation strategy, barring a large increase in hospital ICU bed capacity.

By contrast, ICL did publish an extensive table showing the results of its model run for Britain over a group of four increasingly stringent NPI scenarios. These range from the “worst case” projection with half a million deaths (the figures vary depending on assumptions about the virus’s reproduction rate) to a more stringent model where four NPIs (public school closures, case isolation, home quarantine, and social distancing) are simultaneously enacted. The results are depicted below.


(Source: Imperial College Report #9, March 16, 2020)

Note that the UK enacted policies based on all four measures recommended by the March 16th report, as well as an even more stringently enforced general lockdown on three separate occasions. After one year of following and expanding upon the Imperial College strategy, an unusual result appears in the data: not only have the UK’s numbers come up far short of Ferguson’s most alarmist scenario (depicted in the first column), but the UK has actually done much worse than the other NPI mitigation models in the ICL report.

As of the 1-year anniversary, the UK had a little over 125,000 confirmed Covid-19 deaths. By implication, the UK death toll has exceeded the mildest of the other three NPI scenarios from the ICL model (column 2) and blown past its heavier NPI recommendations (columns 3 and 4), even while operating under a more stringent set of lockdowns than ICL originally contemplated.

The implications are clear. While Ferguson wildly exaggerated the “worst case” scenario for the UK, he also severely overestimated the effectiveness of NPIs at controlling the pandemic.

By building its policy response around the Imperial College model, the UK government delivered the worst of both worlds. It imposed some of the most severe and long-lasting lockdowns in the world based on the premise that NPIs would work as Ferguson’s team predicted, and that such actions were needed to avert a catastrophe. Except the lockdowns did not work as intended, and the UK also ended up with an abnormally high death count compared to other countries – including locales that did not lock down, or that reopened earlier and for longer periods than the UK.

Why were the Ferguson/ICL predictions so far off base on both ends? The answer likely derives from two central flaws in their model design.

First, Ferguson adapted the model directly from a 2006 influenza pandemic model that he published in the journal Nature. As with the March 16th Covid report, this study aimed to predict the spread of a virus across the general population, subject to a suite of increasingly stringent NPI countermeasures. As the second-to-last paragraph of the study reveals though, it only modeled general population spread. In doing so, the authors acknowledged that “Lack of data prevent us from reliably modelling transmission in the important contexts of residential institutions (for example, care homes, prisons) and health care settings.”

With Covid-19 however, nursing homes have emerged as one of the greatest vulnerabilities in the pandemic. In many locales, nursing home deaths alone account for almost half of all Covid-19 fatalities despite housing only a tiny fraction of the population. While the latest nursing home figures for the UK are as of yet hard to come by, reports from last year suggest they are not only a large share of the country’s Covid-19 deaths but also severely undercounted in official records. Using a preliminary count from last year, the UK had one of the worst nursing home shielding ratios in Europe – a measure that compares a country’s death toll in its care facilities to the general population. The ICL projections likely missed this problem entirely due to a defect in the 2006 model it was built upon.

Second, Ferguson’s model severely overstated the effectiveness of NPIs at mitigating general population spread. Part of the appeal of the ICL report from last March came from its succinct portrayal of the available policy options and their claimed effects. The modelers presented political leaders with a menu of escalating measures to adopt with mathematical precision, each linked to an associated projection of its effectiveness at staving off the pandemic. All the politicians had to do was select from the menu and implement the prescribed course.

Except it wasn’t that simple in practice. ICL’s recommended NPI measures baked assumptions about their own effectiveness into the model. In reality, most of these assumptions had never been tested or even minimally quantified. As a key chart from the March 16th report illustrates, the supposed effect of each NPI was little more than a guesstimate – a set of nice, round numbers that purported to show the change in social interactions after its adoption.

A 2019 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) warned of the flimsy empirical basis for epidemiology models such as the one developed by ICL. “Simulation models provide a weak level of evidence,” the report noted, and lacked randomized controlled trials to test their assumptions. The same report designated mass quarantine measures – what we now know of as lockdowns – as “Not Recommended” due to lack of evidence for their effectiveness. Summarizing this literature, which included the same 2006 influenza model that Ferguson adapted to Covid-19, the WHO concluded: “Most of the currently available evidence on the effectiveness of quarantine on influenza control was drawn from simulation studies, which have a low strength of evidence.”

The UK’s experience under the ICL model therefore demonstrates not only Ferguson’s propensity toward wildly alarmist disease forecasting – it also illustrates the abject failure of lockdowns and related NPI measures to mitigate the pandemic. As a revealing point of comparison, the UK’s population-adjusted daily death toll under lockdowns has been consistently higher than no-lockdown Sweden for most of the pandemic, despite both countries following a nearly identical pattern of timing in both the first and second waves.

The relevant question, then, is not whether the UK failed to lock down stringently enough, but whether lockdowns offer any meaningful benefit whatsoever in mitigating the pandemic. A growing body of empirical data strongly suggests they do not.

The repeated failures of the Ferguson/ICL model point to a scientific error at the heart of the theory behind lockdowns and similar NPIs. They assume, without evidence, that their prescriptive approach is correct, and that it may be implemented by sheer will as one might achieve by clicking a check-box in a Sim City-style video game. After a year of real-time testing, it is now abundantly clear that this video game approach to pandemic management ranks among the most catastrophic public health policy failures in the last century.

Phil Magness is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of numerous works on economic history, taxation, economic inequality, the history of slavery, and education policy in the United States.

March 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Hancock Is Terrified That Under-50’s Will Refuse Covid Vaccine

By Richie Allen | March 18, 2021

It’s a bit of a mystery. Speaking from Downing Street last night, UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that the under-50’s would have to wait a bit longer for their covid vaccine. He blamed production issues. The manufacturers said there are no issues. What’s going on?

A leaked letter suggested that the NHS is expecting a significant reduction in supply for a month from March 29. The letter said that local vaccination centres have been told not to make any new bookings from the end of this month.

This means that the under-50’s will have to wait until at least May, to get their first dose. Hancock said the country was still “on track” to hit vaccination targets to take England out of lockdown.

A fall in provision from AstraZeneca is being blamed for the shortage. Last night, the firm moved quickly to refute the claim. The company insisted that its UK supply chain was not experiencing disruption.

A spokesman said: “Our UK domestic supply chain is not experiencing any disruption and there is no impact on our delivery schedule.” Someone is lying.

I bet the government is anticipating widespread refusal among the under-50’s. I’ve been speculating for some time now, that the roll-out hasn’t been as successful as the government would have us believe.

I believe that they were largely successful in persuading OAP’s to have a jab, but began running into problems as they moved down the age groups.

Younger people are far more likely to refuse the vaccine or choose to wait and see if it causes harm. And it is causing harm. Unless you’ve been on Planet Mars for the last fortnight, you’ll have heard of the blood clotting.

The majority of under-50’s have Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts. They’ll be aware of reports that the vaccines are killing people, although it’s not known on what scale. But it’s happening.

And they’ll also be aware that 200,000 NHS workers have indicated that they will decline the jab. That was covered by mainstream media. Taking all this into account, my guess is that Matt Hancock is lying when he says that “supply is bumpy.”

He’s terrified that us under-50’s won’t be rolling up our sleeves. And why would we? Why would we need an experimental drug for an illness that most of us have never had, or may have had and didn’t even know about it?

I believe the government has bought itself a month, to try and figure out what to do. If it opens the door to booking under-50’s for their jabs and there is widespread refusal as I’ve suggested, the media will cover it, even if reluctantly.

Expect the dangling of more carrots in the weeks to come. We’ll hear a lot of talk about holidays and outdoor music festivals tied in with green passports or whatever name they give them. That’s their ace card.

At some stage though, they’ll have to go for it and open the doors to the young. What happens next will be fascinating.

March 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

WHO Whistleblower Talks To Lawyer Reiner Fuellmich

Global Report: There Is NO Deadly Virus – http://online.anyflip.com/inblw/ufbs/mobile/index.html?s=08
www.stopworldcontrol.com
Link to UK Governments Website confirming the downgrading of Covid19 on 19th March 2020 – https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
Learn The Risk (Brandy Vaughan) – https://learntherisk.org/
The ‘Independent’ governing body overseeing the Pfizer Vaccine…..funded by………you guessed it – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for-collaboration-with-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-the-world-health-organisation
Rockefeller Operation Lockstep (2010) – https://thealterofdeceit.net/2020/05/09/rockefeller-foundation-paper-published-in-2010-lockstep/
Expose the Great Reset – www.exposethegreatreset.com

March 17, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment