Prince Charles sees ‘golden opportunity’ in Covid-19 pandemic as UK economy faces biggest recession in centuries
By Helen Buyniski | RT | June 4, 2020
The UK’s Prince Charles has said that the coronavirus crisis represents a global “reset moment” – one which seemingly allows leaders to ram through sustainability initiatives as cash-strapped citizens have no choice but to obey.
The virus’ “unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” the heir to the British throne declared on Wednesday. He made the comments during a virtual meeting of the World Economic Forum’s Covid Action Platform, announcing the unveiling of his ‘Great Reset’ initiative. Charles cited the dramatic changes wrought by the pandemic as proof that a revolutionary shift was possible, glossing over the destruction the outbreak has wrought on the lives of average Brits to outline his ideal green future.
The project’s aim is to ensure businesses “build back better” in an environmentally-friendly fashion after shutdowns enacted in response to the epidemic left the UK economy in ruins. Businesses would be wise to “think big and act now,” the prince advised, noting “we have a unique, but rapidly shrinking, window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path.”
“It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”
While details of the royal’s big plan were somewhat elusive, buried under an avalanche of buzzwords, it involves a series of industry- and issue-specific roundtables, a social media networking component and “virtual hubs” aimed at attracting young people and “fostering innovation” through “thought leadership and practical solutions.” He called for a “paradigm shift” that “inspires action at revolutionary levels and pace,” taking inspiration from the rapid transformation of industries such as mobile technology and space exploration to interweave sustainability into the financial system.
It’s not like the UK is in a position to say no, he hinted, threatening naysayers with several flavors of climate-induced doom. “We have no alternative because otherwise, unless we take the action necessary, and we build again in a greener and more sustainable and more inclusive way, then we will end up having more and more pandemics and more and more disasters from ever-accelerating global warming and climate change,” the prince proclaimed.
While Prince Charles stressed in a promotional video accompanying the big reveal that “global warming, climate change, and the devastating loss of biodiversity” are the chief threats facing humanity, the majority of Britons are likely to be more concerned with the devastating recession threatening to engulf the nation completely. The Bank of England warned last month that the UK economy could shrink by 30 percent by the end of the summer. The central bank’s dire predictions – its first official forecast since the pandemic took hold – warned that GDP could decline by 14 percent for 2020, the sharpest single-year drop in over three centuries. And while the Bank of England claimed UK families entered the crisis “in a stronger position than they were before the 2008 financial crisis,” the Office of National Statistics revealed in April that the economy was already headed south even before the lockdown was imposed in March.
By the start of May, one-fifth of British retailers had permanently closed their doors, according to the British Chamber of Commerce. It also warned that while a third of the country’s economy was “shut down,” another third was only functioning “with some difficulty.” Some two-thirds of UK businesses have sought government assistance to pay furloughed staff, but help has been slow in coming. Still, the UK is behind only Singapore and Japan in terms of the amount of money it has pledged toward helping businesses recover from the crisis, earmarking the equivalent of 8.5 percent of its GDP – about £120 billion – for emergency loans, financing, and grants. This places the needy wholly at the mercy of the government – which, if Prince Charles has anything to say about it, will wrest serious sustainability concessions out of them before they’re allowed to go forward.
The UK has suffered greatly under the pandemic, recording the second-highest number of coronavirus deaths worldwide – over 39,000 as of Thursday, according to data collected by Johns Hopkins University. Public trust in the country’s response to the virus has also been shaken dramatically, with just 51 percent of respondents to a survey conducted last month reporting they approved of London’s handling of the epidemic – an 18-point drop over the previous month. Imperial College professor Neil Ferguson, the disgraced architect of the UK lockdown policy, probably didn’t help matters earlier this week when he quietly admitted his draconian stay-at-home restrictions were no better than Sweden’s no-lockdown response in terms of saving lives.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23
WHO says hydroxychloroquine trials for Covid-19 will RESUME as doubts emerge over side-effects research
RT | June 3, 2020
The World Health Organization has said that clinical trials involving the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine will resume, following doubts about US research which had led to their suspension.
WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday that the trials of the anti-malarial drug for possible use against the novel coronavirus would be resumed, after they’d been paused over fears of increased death rates.
The world health body said there was no reason to modify its clinical trial of the drug, adding that experts had advised the continuation of “all arms” of the so-called Solidarity trial, including that concerning hydroxychloroquine.
Last week, Italy, France and Germany banned the use of the drug to treat Covid-19 patients, citing new clinical evidence indicating that there was “an increased risk for adverse reactions with little or no benefit.”
The much-publicized study in medical journal The Lancet could not confirm any benefit from the drug against Covid-19, and also reported that taking it was associated with increased risks of in-hospital deaths. However, serious questions have been raised about the data used in that study.
The research, by US-based company Surgisphere, began to unravel in recent weeks as experts noticed red flags and questioned the credulity of its data-gathering and reporting. The Lancet journal issued an “expression of concern” over the study on Wednesday.
A Guardian investigation found that Surgisphere’s employees “have little or no data or scientific background,” with one appearing to be a sci-fi author and fantasy artist. The firm’s chief executive Sapan Desai has been named in three medical malpractice suits, the outlet said.
One WHO expert said hopefully trials of the drug will continue until there is a “definitive” answer on whether or not it works, Reuters reported.
Fantasy Wish List Masquerades as Climate Poll
Green lobby group invites public to endorse green fantasies
click for source
By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | June 1, 2020
Last week, a raft of newspaper headlines declared “Canadians still support climate action: poll.” We are intended to believe that “COVID-19’s economic and health challenges haven’t diminished” ordinary people’s enthusiasm for green policies. But this poll has oodles of problems.
First, it was sponsored by Clean Energy Canada. Embedded within the term clean energy is the philosophical argument/political statement/moral judgment that our current, dominant forms of fossil fuel-based energy are dirty.
A ‘clean energy’ outfit isn’t neutral. Its entire purpose is to promote some ideas and to disparage others. What actually happened here is an organization with an agenda drew up a fantastical wish list, and then invited Canadians to agree that the items on that wish list are awesome.
Big surprise that lots of people think upgrading broadband Internet service and public transit are a good idea – especially when the pollster, Abacus Data, declares them “part of an effort to attract companies to invest and grow businesses in Canada.”
Big surprise that lots of people like the idea of “Creating more spaces in towns and cities where people can walk and cycle without fear of vehicles.” But the realistic questions, surely, are:
– how much do such projects cost?
– what other ways might we need/choose to spend the same money?
Big surprise that, in the words of Clean Energy Canada’s press release,
91% are interested in the idea of Canada as the world leader in electric buses.
As if that were a likely scenario. Canada contains half of 1% of the world’s total population. We are a geographically huge country, with an exceptionally low population density. This is just delusional.
Big surprise that many people are in of favour “Making public transit free to help get more cars off the road and reduce emissions and congestion.” But nothing is free. The germane questions are:
– who should cover some portion of public transit costs – those actually using it, or everyone via their tax contributions to various levels of government?
– is a devastating economic crisis the right time to increase government expenditures and responsibility?
This poll would have been truly useful had it asked people whether the coronavirus pandemic has changed their attitudes toward using public transit. Are they now more likely to pack themselves into crowded commuter trains, city buses, and subways than a year ago? Less likely? Or the same?
I relied on public transit during the three decades I lived in downtown Toronto. Prior to this pandemic, I would never have described myself as a germophobe. But I now reside in a small town – and the world has changed.
The next time I visit Toronto, I’m unlikely to repeat my previous routine – parking the car an hour away, boarding a commuter train, relying on subways, buses, and streetcars within the city, then boarding another commuter train.
I now see public transit as risky. For me and for others. The idea of taking any form of public transit during rush hour fills me with dread.
I can’t be the only one.
Public transit has always struggled. Ridership was already in decline is many jurisdictions, before the pandemic struck (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Services such as Uber had already altered the landscape. During these widespread lockdowns, more people have discovered that working from home is possible and desirable. Add in infection concerns, and public transit may never recover.
Indian Council of Medical Research writes to WHO disagreeing with HCQ assessment
Officials say international trial dosage four times higher than India
ANI | May 29, 2020
NEW DELHI: After the Union Health Ministry expressed reservations about the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) advisory to suspend hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) usage in treating COVID-19 patients, now, India’s nodal government agency ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) overseeing the country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has also written to the WHO citing differences in dosage standards between Indian and international trials that could explain the efficacy issues of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients.
Currently, as per protocols set by the Indian government to treat severe coronavirus patients requiring ICU management, HCQ dosages are administered in the following way- 1st day a heavy dose of 400mg HCQ dose once in the morning and one at night, followed by 200 mg HCQ one in the morning and one at night to be followed for the next four days. The total dosage administered to a patient in 5 days, therefore, amounts to 2400 mg.
Speaking to ANI on the condition of anonymity, a Health Ministry official explained the context behind the ICMR and Health Ministry disagreeing with WHO’s assessment, the primary point being the wide gap in dosage levels given in India and internationally.”Internationally in Solidarity trial COVID-19 patients are being administered with–800 mg x 2 loading doses 6 hours apart followed by 400 mg x 2 doses per day for 10 days. The total dosage given to a patient over 11 days is about 9600 mg which is four times higher than the dose we are giving to our patients,” informed the official.
“This indicates that in our treatment protocol, the efficacy of HCQ is good and patients are recovering quickly with less amount of dosage being administered,” said the official.
Buoyed by the preliminary success observed in the treatment of COVID-19 patients through these HCQ tablets, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has written to the WHO.
In a letter via an email, Dr Sheela Godbole, National Coordinator of the WHO-India Solidarity Trial and Head of the Division of Epidemiology, ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute has written to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at World Health Organization.
In a letter, Dr Godbole stated: “There was no reason to suspend the trial for safety concern.” … Full article
The Campaign Against HCQ—Part II
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | Institute For Political Economy | May 28, 2020
A few years ago the British medical journal, The Lancet, published a paper touting the safety of HCQ. But this was before HCQ with zinc was found effective if used early enough against Covid-19. Covid-19 turned HCQ’s effectiveness into a big problem for Big Pharma’s big profits.
The solution was another study by medical professionals some of whom have ties to Big Pharma and none of whom, apparently, are involved in the treatment of Covid patients. The study lumps together people in different stages of the disease and undergoing different treatments. It touts its large sample, but many of the patients in the sample received treatment too late after the virus had reached their heart and other vital organs. Most likely the people who died from heart failure died as a result of the virus, not from HCQ.
To be effective treatment has to stop the virus early. Waiting until the patient must be hospitalized has given the virus too much of a head start. Every doctor, and there are many, who reports success with the HCQ treatment stresses early treatment. President Trump used a two-week treatment with HCQ as a prophylactic as he was constantly coming into contact with people who tested positive for the virus. Many medical professionals who are treating Covid patients also use HCQ as a prophylactic.
The Lancet study was a rush job as it was essential for Big Pharma to prevent the spread of the HCQ treatment and awareness of its safety and effectiveness. The study’s authors completed the data collection around the middle of April and the study was published on May 22. As soon as it appeared, it was used to close down the World Health Organization’s clinical trial of hydoxychloroquine in coronavirus patients citing safety concerns. Most likely, the trial was aborted in order to prevent an official agency from finding out that HCQ worked.
The media, of course, used the suspended trial to cast more doubt on Trump’s judgment for recommending and using the treatment, the implication being that Trump had put himself at more risk from a heart attack than from the virus itself.
The Daily Mail, which is often somewhat skeptical of official reports, even misreported French virologist Didier Raoult’s report (see this) of his success with treating 1,061 patients with HCQ/AZ as consisting of only a small sample of 30 patients (see this). A small sample is considered to be inconclusive. Thus 1,061 people became 30.
The Lancet study claims a high mortality from HCQ treatment, reporting a death rate ranging from 5.1% to 13.8%. In response to a journalist when asked about this claim, Didier Raoult said that he and has colleagues have followed 4,000 of their patients so far. They have had 36 deaths and none from heart problems for a death rate of 0.009%. According to The Lancet study, he should have between 204 and 552 patients dead from heart problems. He has zero. Raoult had more than 10,000 cardiograms analysed by rythmologists (a special kind of cardiologist) searching for any sign of heart problems.
NIH’s Dr. Fauci denies that Raoult’s hard evidence is evidence. On May 27 Fauci said, without showing shame of his ignorance or his lie, that there’s no evidence that shows the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine is effective at treating COVID-19. (see this)
Perhaps what Fauci means is that no study undertaken by NIH or another Big Pharma friendly official body has been done and that only such studies constitute evidence.
When hard evidence such as Raoult’s is suppressed and misreported while “studies” doctored to produce a predetermined conclusion that serves Big Pharma profits are rushed into publication, we know that money has pushed ethics out of medical research. A number of concerned people have been telling us this for some time. We are past due to listen to them.
Private medicine is profit driven, which makes it susceptible to fraud. In long ago days fraud was restrained by the moral character of doctors and the respect for truth of researchers. These restraints, never perfect, have eroded as greed turned everything, integrity itself, into a commodity that is bought and sold.
The intent is to bury HCQ as a low cost effective treatment and to put in its place a high cost alternative whether effective or not, and to supplement this enhancement of profits with mass vaccination which might do us more harm than the virus itself. Big Pharma could care less. The only value it knows is profit.
This intent has garnered the support of the French, Belgian and Italian governments. Using The Lancet study and WHO’s termination of its HCQ trial as the excuse, the French government revoked its decree authorizing HCQ treatment. Belgium’s health ministry issued a warning against the use of HCQ except in registered clinical trials. Italy’s health agency wants HCQ’s use banned outside of clinical trials and suspended authorization to use HCQ as a Covid-19 treatment. See this.
Does this mean that Raoult and his team who by treating Covid patients with HCQ have achieved the remarkable low death rate of 0.009% are prohibited from using the proven cure to save lives? Will Raoult and his team be imprisoned if they continue to save lives? What about the people who will die from the three government’s prevention of a safe and effective treatment? Will France, Belgium, and Italy accept responsibility for these lost lives?
I can’t avoid wondering if the revolving door between Big Pharma and the NIH and CDC which corrupts US public health decisions also operates in France, Belgium and Italy. Are European health officials elevating themselves by climbing over the dead bodies of their victims?
The New Hysteria
By Paul Craig Roberts • Institute For Political Economy • May 28, 2020
We now hear that wearing masks is not a safety issue but a control issue imposed on us to take away our liberty.
How likely is it that every state, local, and federal health official, every state governor, every government in the world is involved in a control conspiracy? How can countries locked in intense conflict against one another be united in a control conspiracy? Can we really imagine Washington in league with Iran, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Russia? It is amazing to me how far off real concerns all of this has become. It has become more of a hysteria than the virus itself.
The emotional and liberty issues are made up. Everyone was demanding masks, the general population as well as doctors and nurses. The criticism of the authorities was the lack of masks. The lack of N-95 or higher masks was the leading sign of the unpreparedness of the Western governments.
The flip-flopping of public health officials on masks is likely explained by the initial unavailability of masks even for those treating infected patients as well as for the public. With no masks available, the authorities did not want to be criticized for their unpreparedness and underplayed the importance of the unavailable masks. When masks became available, they changed their position. It seems clear enough that the use of masks was intended for moving about in congested areas and in circumstances of close contact, not for a walk alone in the woods.
The notion that wearing a mask is harmful to healthy people is nonsensical. If you don’t have the virus, you can’t be building up the load by breathing in and out trapped virus. On the other hand, if you have the virus, yes, you could build up your viral load by breathing your own infection and make yourself sicker by protecting others by wearing a N-95 mask without a respirator valve. A respirator valve allows contaminated air to escape. If the purpose of the mask is to prevent spread of the virus, only people who are not infected should use a mask with a respirator. If you are infected, you are better off isolated at home than going about wearing a mask.
Health educator Peggy Hall alleges fake science behind mask wearing: CDC Mask Deception: So why do surgeons and researchers working with infectious substances wear masks?!
The allegation that masks are not effective—such as this one: —comes from confusing surgical masks with N-95 masks. A N-95 mask prevents entry and exit of small virus particles. A surgical mask does not. An infected person should use the N-95 mask that does not have a respirator valve, because the respirator valve allows unfiltered contaminated air to escape. See here.
Public health is a public issue. To claim individual exemption on freedom grounds is narcissistic selfishness.
Racism, Magical Thinking & the Coronavirus
Rather than quarantining travelers, our leaders chose a course of action that led to entire countries being locked down.
January 28th article, published in Canada’s largest circulation newspaper; click for source
By Donna Laframboise | Big Picture News | May 25, 2020
By the third week of January, the entire world knew the Chinese government was so spooked by a lethal, never-before-seen virus that it had locked down Wuhan. That city is home to 10 million people, about the same number as reside in Paris, London, and Chicago.
Back in January, Wuhan had a shortage of hospital beds and a shortage of doctors. Medical personnel from other parts of the country had been deployed, but the caseload remained overwhelming.
In January, the entire world knew flights from Wuhan to other parts of China had been halted. Highways were being closed. Soldiers wearing face masks were barricading the train station. Because the virus was raging in a particular locale, it was eminently sensible try to prevent its spread within China.
Elsewhere, governments watched these events unfold. Rather than safeguarding their own citizens and their own economies, rather than taking immediate, concrete steps to prevent the virus from spreading beyond China, they indulged in magical thinking.
If only they avoided doing anything discriminatory, all would be well. If only they walked on eggshells, careful not to fuel anti-Asian stereotypes, this infectious disease would apparently evaporate of its own accord.
January 28th article, disseminated by Canada’s national, publicly-funded broadcaster; click for source
Thus, a medical problem connected to a specific geographical location was transformed, reconfigured, and repackaged. Journalists, left wing media outlets, and petty politicians accomplished this in a trice.
Politically correct thought is rote dogmatism. It is non-thought. It is knee-jerk, censorious, and uncharitable. But its grip is compelling. In January 2020, among Canada’s political class, fear of being labelled a racist far outweighed anyone’s fear of a deadly virus. Please read that sentence again. We desperately need to learn this lesson.
Juanita Nathan, the chair of a north Toronto school board (whose left wing, community activist credentials are described here), lectured parents about “demonstrating bias and racism”:
while the virus can be traced to a province in China, we have to be cautious that this not be seen as a Chinese virus…At times such as this, we must come together as Canadians and avoid any hint of xenophobia, which in this case can victimize our East Asian Chinese community…Situations such as these can regrettably give rise to discrimination based on perceptions, stereotypes and hate. [bold added; see here, here, and here]
Heaven deliver us from elected officials who imagine their job is to instruct taxpayers on how to think or speak about any issue. In the Canadian political system, school trustees are bottom of the barrel. This is a part-time job in which budgets are overseen, and parental concerns are addressed. Trustees are not priests, and have no business preaching morality to anyone.
Concerned parents, many of whom were Asian, were told by Nathan not to send their children to school with face masks, even though classmates had just returned from visits to China. Parents were told mask wearing “heightens anxiety.” In the words of Nathan:
Wearing a mask really singles out some kids in the classroom when they don’t need to and that’s what we’re addressing at the moment – just having those conversations to give knowledge to the parents why they don’t need to at this moment.
And so it went. Leaders of the world’s most advanced economies assured the public the risk was low. We were told to wash our hands, that seasonal influenza was more dangerous, that everything was under control.
But things weren’t under control. Flights from China were not halted. Nor were flights from other hot spots. Travelers returning home weren’t required to self-quarantine until it was far too late.
An information sheet published by the Canadian government on February 24th didn’t instruct returning travelers to self-quarantine. Rather, these people were asked to monitor themselves for “fever, cough and difficulty breathing” and to “avoid places where you cannot easily separate yourself from others if you become ill.”
Self-isolation was recommended only if they developed symptoms. Since many infected people suffer no symptoms, mild symptoms, or symptoms other than those listed by the Canadian government, such measures were wholly inadequate.
Weeks ticked by. Thousands of international flights continued to take off and land. People visiting China, Iran, and Italy brought the virus back home with them. To Seattle. To New York City. To Brazil, India, South Africa, Australia, and to Canada (see here, here, here, and here).
By the time they were diagnosed, some of these people had infected those who’d shared the same flight or the same airport shuttle. They’d spread the virus at their workplaces, on public transit, at houses of worship, birthday parties, and funerals. As late as March 22nd, the Times of London ran a story about Heathrow airport, headlined Coronavirus: Flights from Italy, Iran and China still landing.
Today, four months after the lockdown of Wuhan, a grim milestone will be achieved. The number of Americans who’ve died of the coronavirus is expected to surpass 100,000.
Here in Canada, 6,400 people have perished so far (back in 2003, SARS claimed 44 Canadian lives).
Between them, Italy, Spain, and France have lost 90,000 souls.
In Brazil, where the virus is still gathering steam, the death toll exceeds 22,700 already.
Public health officials, including the World Health Organization, let this happen. Politicians let this happen. There was a time to take targeted action. There was a time to respond strategically and decisively. They failed.
The sorrow associated with those hundreds of thousands of corpses is just the beginning of this disaster. Entire populations have spent weeks to months confined to their homes, harassed by the police for walking their dog. The economic damage is monstrous – for individuals, business, and nations.
Disruption. Job loss. Home repossession. Despair.
Rather than shutting down a few flights, our leaders chose a course of action that led to virtually all flights, everywhere, being grounded. For goodness knows how long.
Rather than quarantining a subset of travelers for a couple of weeks, our leaders chose a course of action that led to entire populations being locked down. For goodness knows how long.
This is where politically correct thought leads. This is where our ugly, destructive preoccupation with hints of xenophobia takes us.
Legitimate concern about the spread of a pernicious virus was silenced. Leaders who wanted to do the right thing faced serious social disincentives. No one wants to be called a racist.
Going forward, we can live in a community in which our leaders think clearly and act sensibly. Or we can stifle other important discussions – and pay a terrible price.


![Richard Lyle during First Minister's Questions in the Scottish Parliament, on February 7, 2019 in Edinburgh, Scotland. [Ken Jack/Getty Images]](https://i1.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/GettyImages-1094968024-scaled-e1590509175132.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&quality=85&strip=all&ssl=1)



