
A middle-aged woman, walking along a pavement in the afternoon sunshine, sees a young family approaching and instantly becomes stricken with terror at the prospect of contracting a deadly infection. A man in a queue in a garage kiosk leans into the face of another and screams, “You selfish idiot! Hundreds of people will die because you don’t wear a mask.” The aggressor is oblivious to the fact that his victim suffers a history of asthma and anxiety problems. A neighbour puts on a face covering and plastic gloves before wheeling her dustbin to the end of her drive. These are three recent examples of many similar events I’ve observed or read. What could be the main reason for such extraordinary behaviour? Has the emergence of the SARS-COV-2 virus magically re-wired our brains, transforming many of us into vindictive germaphobes?
No, of course not. These extreme human reactions are, I believe, primarily the result of the Government’s deployment of covert psychological ‘nudges’, introduced as a means of increasing people’s compliance with the Covid restrictions.
In an article in the Critic, I discussed the remit of the Government’s behavioural scientists in the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), a subgroup of SAGE which offers advice to the Government about how to maximise the impact of its Covid communications strategy. The methods of influence recommended by the SPI-B are drawn from a range of ‘nudges’ described in the Institute of Government document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy, several of which primarily act on the subconscious of their targets – the British people – achieving a covert influence on their behaviour. The three ‘nudges’ to have evoked the most controversy, among both psychological practitioners and the general public, are: the strategic use of fear (inflating perceived threat levels); shame (conflating compliance with virtue); and peer pressure (portraying non-compliers as a deviant minority) – or ‘affect’, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’, to use the language of behavioural science. (Specific examples of how each of these covert strategies have been used throughout the Covid crisis are described here).
The British Psychological Society (BPS) is the leading professional body for psychologists in the U.K. According to their website, a central role of the BPS is: “To promote excellence and ethical practice in the science, education and application of the discipline.” In light of this remit, I – together with 46 other psychologists and therapists – wrote a letter to the BPS on January 6th, 2021, expressing our ethical concerns about the use of covert psychological strategies as a means of securing compliance with Covid restrictions. In particular, our alarm centred on three areas: the recommendation of ‘nudges’ that exploit heightened emotional discomfort as a means of securing compliance; implementing potent covert psychological strategies without any effort to gain the informed consent of the British public; and harnessing these interventions for the purpose of achieving adherence to contentious and unevidenced restrictions that infringe basic human rights.
Responses from the BPS to our initial letter were slow and circuitous. However, on July 1st we received an email from Dr. Roger Paxton, the Chair of the Ethics Committee, which clarified the BPS’s position: in the Committee’s view, there is nothing ethically questionable about deploying covert psychological strategies on the British people as a means of increasing compliance with public health restrictions.
An in-depth inspection of Dr. Paxton’s defence of the BPS reveals that it is evasive, disingenuous and wholly unconvincing.
First, he quibbles about the use of the word “covert”, arguing that the compliance techniques under scrutiny are more appropriately described as “indirect”. Behavioural-science documents routinely refer to the psychological strategies underpinning Government communication campaigns as evoking responses from people that are “unconscious”, “subconscious” or “automatic”. The crucial point is that the human targets of these ‘nudges’ are often unaware that the intention of the SPI-B psychologists is to scare, shame them and socially pressure them to conform. The MINDSPACE publication – co-authored by Professor David Halpern, an SPI-B and SAGE member – seems to concur: “Citizens may not fully realise that their behaviour is being changed… Clearly, this opens Government up to charges of manipulation… [as] it may offer little opportunity for citizens to opt-out.” (p. 66)
Second, Dr. Paxton rejects the idea that it would be ethical to offer citizens an opportunity to opt-out by asserting that the application of covert psychological strategies to shape people’s behaviour falls outside the realm of individual consent. The BPS appears to be claiming that an appeal to some nebulous, ideologically-driven concept of social decision-making exempts psychologists from the fundamental requirement to seek a person’s informed agreement before delivering an intervention. So according to the BPS – the formal guardians of ethical practice in the U.K. – the Covid communications strategy, aimed at achieving mass behavioural change, was intended to influence some anonymous collective rather than the actions of as many individuals as possible.
Again, the BPS stance is at odds with Professor Halpern’s position. In his 2019 book, Inside the Nudge Unit, he states: “If Governments… wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public. Ultimately, you – the public, the citizen – need to decide what the objectives, and limits, of nudging and empirical testing should be.” (p. 375)
Third, Dr. Paxton’s claim that the levels of fear throughout the Covid pandemic were proportionate to the viral threat is ill-informed and does not stand up to scrutiny. The minutes of the SPI-B meeting of March 22nd, 2020, demonstrate that its endorsement of a covert psychological strategy was a calculated decision to scare the British people, recommending that: “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent… using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” In her book, A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth interviewed members of SPI-B who confirmed that there had been a concerted effort to elevate the fear levels of the general public. One committee member, Educational Psychologist Dr. Gavin Morgan, admitted: “They went overboard with the scary message to get compliance.” Another SPI-B member – who wished to remain anonymous – was even more forthright: “The way we have used fear is dystopian… The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
The mission to indiscriminately instil fear in the British public has been highly effective. An opinion poll prior to ‘Freedom Day’ suggested most people were worried about the prospect of lifting the remaining Covid restrictions. Even now, when all the vulnerable groups have been offered vaccination, many of our citizens remain tormented by ‘Covid Anxiety Syndrome’ – a disabling combination of fear and maladaptive coping strategies – with 20% of the population ‘markedly affected’. And this psychology-assisted fear inflation will be responsible for a substantial proportion of the extensive collateral damage associated with the restrictions, including excess non-Covid deaths and mental health problems.
Fourth, Dr. Paxton’s response makes no reference to the use of shame and scapegoating, and whether these are acceptable strategies for a civilised society to use. One can only assume that the BPS either views these tactics as acceptable, or that they seek to avoid acknowledging that psychologists have recommended practices that, in some respects, resemble the methods used by totalitarian regimes such as China, where the state inflicts pain on a subset of its population in an attempt to eliminate beliefs and behaviour they perceive to be deviant.
The dismissal of our ethical concerns by the BPS was predictable: a cursory glance at the scientists comprising the SPI-B shows that several of its members are also influential figures in the BPS; a major conflict of interest that renders the impartiality of their views highly questionable. What was surprising was the strident tone of Dr. Paxton’s rejoinder, as exemplified by his assertion that the psychologists’ role in the pandemic response demonstrated “social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological expertise”. I suspect the lady trembling on the pavement, the young man being verbally abused in the garage, and the neighbour donning mask and gloves to wheel out her dustbin – along with the many others in similar positions – might all beg to differ.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist.
August 27, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
Having been forced to endure months of harsh lockdowns, my often-malleable compatriots Down Under are starting to fight back as they realise their government is clueless and they’ve been nuts to swallow the ‘zero Covid’ strategy.
By any measure, Australia has not enjoyed the coronavirus pandemic – and that has nothing to do with the number of deaths, because at less than 1,000 for a population of 25 million, it has, in the main, escaped lightly.
Where it has really suffered is in identifying exactly what level of threat Covid-19 poses to the population and then acting accordingly. Instead of being bold, brave, and positive in its handling of the situation, Australia has shown all the spine of a bluebottle jellyfish.
The collywobbles set in at the slightest whiff of Covid. Not deaths. Not hospitalisations. But simple cases of the virus send public health officials into a spin, locking down millions, deploying the military onto the streets, and imposing needless and draconian curfews. Blind panic best sums up the Australian government’s approach.
Then there are the stern warnings from state leaders that would be hilarious if they weren’t so serious – about enjoying sunset on the beach, removing a mask to drink beer, dodging errant footballs while watching a game, and most recently, a local council deciding to shoot 15 rescue dogs rather than allow volunteers from an animal shelter to travel for their collection in case they spread the virus.
That’s the level of insanity we’re looking at.
Meanwhile, it was humans on the receiving end at a so-called ‘freedom rally’ in Melbourne, where violence between protesters and police led to officers firing rounds of pepper balls – the most powerful non-lethal force at their disposal – into the anti-lockdown crowd.
It was one sign that patience with being treated like sheep might finally have snapped among parts of the Australian public. And it’s about time. I had begun to wonder what happened to the rebellious larrikins, the famed Aussie battlers, the brave Diggers, the pioneering ‘new Australians’ who just a generation or so ago left homes and family in Italy, Greece, Vietnam and beyond to pursue their dreams in the Lucky Country.
It seemed that a subservience to the ruling class, an unhealthy respect for authority, had overwhelmed my homeland.
The whole penal colony fable is a bit exaggerated, and of course there have been generations of intermingling since the 18th century, when Australia’s first white arrivals were drawn from the ranks of Great Britain’s sheep thieves and petty criminals. The violence and harsh conditions that welcomed those newcomers to the shores of Botany Bay, however, instilled a deep loathing and mistrust of their governing class, and it is often argued that Australia’s success was built on that resentment, driving its people to prove themselves to the authorities at home – and back in Mother England – that they could more than hold their own on the world stage. That inferiority complex was the driving force that has seen us excel in literature, in music, and particularly in sport.
But it also makes the Aussies a malleable bunch at times. Authority can make us go all weak at the knees. Public awareness campaigns that might struggle for lift-off elsewhere prove wildly successful in obedient Oz.
There’s no doubt this has been employed effectively in the past. There were the anti-litter ‘Keep Australia Beautiful’, keep-fit ‘Life. Be in it’, and skin cancer prevention ‘Slip! Slop! Slap!’ campaigns of my childhood. There was the mandatory wearing of bike helmets that came into force in the early 1990s, the plain packaging for cigarettes that appeared in 2012, and even the strict limits on gun ownership under the National Firearms Agreement that followed the Port Arthur massacre which left 35 people dead in 1996.
We have long been suckers for any message whose central premise is: follow this prescriptive guidance and you will be totally free to enjoy the great outdoors (without dying from cancer, obesity, bike accident or gunshot). That explains why the heavy-handed Covid rules have faced such little resistance.
The problem public health officials are facing now, however, is that the message is no longer working. Aussies were told the ‘zero Covid’ strategy that their government was pursuing was the envy of the world. That closing all international borders and keeping everyone at home was the pathway to freedom. Just do as we say and everything will be bonzer.
But they lied. With the Delta variant on the loose, lockdowns, curfews, restrictions on movement and the rest of the usual draconian measures are coming into play once more. But the government has overplayed its hand, and a sceptical public is starting to think, “These galahs haven’t got a bloody clue!” And they’re right.
So we see unrest on the streets of Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, and Melbourne because patience has finally snapped. I say let it rip! I look forward to continuing protests, rule-breaking, tough questions, and political accountability. I look forward to heads rolling, humiliating inquiries, and heartfelt apologies from the bungling clowns in charge.
I might have to wait a few months, but hey, that’s okay… because like my fellow compatriots, I’m not going anywhere.
Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.
August 27, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Australia, Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Washington and Beijing are in the midst of a heated back-and-forth campaign of claims accusing one another of responsibility for unleashing the coronavirus pandemic on the world. US officials allege that the virus may have been leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, while Chinese officials claim it may have originated in a US military biolab.
Chen Xu, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations office in Geneva, has sent the World Health Organisation a formal request asking the global health authority to open a probe into Fort Detrick, the Maryland-based US Army laboratory once known as the centre of America’s biological weapons programme, and its possible role in the origins of the novel coronavirus.
In a letter addressed to WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Chen reiterated Beijing’s position on SARS-CoV-2, which states that the Wuhan lab leak theory is an “extremely unlikely” scenario. The letter went on to ask the WHO to probe the lab at Fort Detrick, and to investigate research carried out by University of North Carolina professor Ralph Baric, suggesting that “if some parties are of the view that the ‘lab leak’ hypothesis remains open, it is the labs of Fort Detrick and the University of North Carolina in the US that should be subject to transparent investigation with full access.”
Chen accompanied his letter with an online petition signed by over 25 million Chinese nationals demanding an investigation into Fort Detrick, as well as two documents, entitled “Doubtful Points About Fort Detrick” and “Coronavirus Research Conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric’s Team at the University of North Carolina”.
The latter document, published in full by Xinhua, calls into question US epidemiologist Dr. Ralph Baric’s work into coronaviruses, including gain-of-function research, and points to his team’s research into synthesizing and modifying SARS-related coronaviruses going back to at least 2003, including bat-related coronaviruses, since at least 2008.
In a press briefing on Wednesday, Fu Cong, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s department of arms control and disarmament, commented on Chen’s letter, suggesting that “the international community has long been seriously concerned about Fort Detrick,” and pointing to the facility’s “advanced capabilities to synthesise and modify SARS-related coronaviruses as early as 2003.”
Fu pointed to “multiple” alleged biological safety-related accidents taking place at the institute, including the mysterious July 2019 shutdown, after which “outbreaks of respiratory diseases sharing similar symptoms of COVID-19” began to be reported “in the communities near Fort Detrick.”
The diplomat further alleged that US biological research activities, including at Fort Detrick and an estimated 200+ US biological institutions abroad, were “not in line with the Biological Weapons Convention,” and “not known [about] by the international community.”
Earlier this month, China rejected a push by the WHO to continue its investigation into COVID-19’s origins at the Wuhan lab, citing their support for ‘scientific, not politicised’ theories on the virus’s roots. On 12 August, the world health authority called on Beijing to share raw data on the earliest cases of Covid.
US President Joe Biden, who spent the 2020 campaign dismissing then-president Donald Trump’s claims on Covid’s Wuhan potential man-made origins, reversed course and ordered a probe into how the virus may have spread to humans in May, giving intelligence agencies until the end of August to put a report on his desk. Chinese media have accused Washington of using “second-hand, unreliable evidence to compile a report that tries to smear China,” while officials in Beijing continue to support the original WHO-China joint study, which concluded that a leak from the Wuhan lab was “highly unlikely”.
In addition to the ‘China did it’/‘US did it’ theories being pushed by officials in both countries, some US lawmakers, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have hinted that both nations may be directly or indirectly responsible. In a recent Senate probe, Paul asked questions about the complex web of US government financing for potentially dangerous coronavirus gain-of-function research at Wuhan in the years leading up to the pandemic. In July, Paul grilled coronavirus czar Anthony Fauci, accusing him of backing such funding and lying to Congress about it. Fauci vocally denied the allegations and told Paul that he “did not know what [he was] talking about”.
August 26, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | China, Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
It’s a race to the bottom of humanity and the competition just keeps getting scarier by the day. On the heels of what we thought was a clear One Horse Race in the ‘Zero COVID’ Sweepstakes, led by New Zealand, a new contender has emerged stateside – Washington, USA.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee, a self-avowed climate zealot, now adds pseudo-medical segregationist and authoritarian to his political resume with a raft of new COVID diktats including a vaccination mandate for all educators across his state.
State education workers will need to be ‘fully vaccinated’ by the hard deadline of October 18th.
Inslee called the vaccines being mandated “incredibly effective, amazingly effective… they are a medical miracle, they are a double miracle…”
Personal and religious beliefs will also not be tolerated:
Inslee topped up his orders by declaring the state’s indoor mask mandate expanded to require everyone to ‘mask up’ in indoor settings, regardless of vaccine status, set to take effect on Monday, August 30th.
You may have seen by now New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern gleefully advocating for COVID ‘ankle bracelets’ – she says “YEES!”:
The News Tribune reports that Eatonville High School in Washington has already implemented Ardern’s fanatical fantasy – requiring its student-athletes and coaches to wear tracking monitors during practices:
“We received grant funding (known as ESSER III) that specifically included provisions to support higher-risk athletic programs, and we used some of those funds to pay for athletic proximity monitors,” the statement reads. “We are using these monitors for high contact and moderate indoor contact sports. The monitors are for both staff (coaches) and students on the field, regardless if they are vaccinated or unvaccinated. If a student or coach tests positive, we will have immediate information regarding athletes’ and coaches’ contacts, so we can more tightly determine who might need to quarantine.”
A parent of two student-athletes at the high school, Jason Ostendorf, told The Times Tribune he had “no choice in the matter” but to sign the consent forms allowing the school to track his kids while they practiced their sports, adding:
“It’s just one more thing they’re doing to the kids through this whole covid thing,” he said. “The vaccine, now be tracked when you’re at practice. Where does this end? I feel like this is an experiment on our kids to see how much we can put them through before they start breaking.”
August 26, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The ONS announced on Monday that there were 40,467 deaths registered in England in July, which is 4.8% more than in June, and 7.6% more than the five-year average. In fact, the number of deaths registered in England was above the five-year average in all four weeks of last month.
These increases make sense, given that there has been a small uptick in COVID-19 deaths associated with the ‘Delta wave’. Although COVID-19 was only the ninth leading cause of death in July, deaths from the first eight causes were all below their five-year averages.
However, because the English population is ageing, the absolute number of people at risk of dying each year is going up. You’d therefore expect to see a greater number of deaths each year, even without a pandemic. What’s more, people who die from COVID-19 tend to be slightly older than those dying of other causes, so the average COVID-19 death is associated with fewer life-years lost.
For these reasons, it’s more informative to track age-adjusted measures of mortality. In July, the age-standardised mortality rate was only 1.3% higher than in May, and was approximately equal to the five-year average. (The exact figure was marginally higher, but the percentage difference was only 0.4%.)
This chart from the ONS shows the age-standardised mortality rate for the first seven months of the year, each year, going back to 2001:

Although 2021’s figure was higher than the figure for 2019, it was 3.6% lower than the figure for 2015 and 2.0% lower than the figure for 2018. This means that – despite higher-than-expected mortality in the winter – the overall level of mortality in the first seven months of 2021 was still lower than three years before.
As a matter of fact, the age-standardised rate from January through July was only 0.8% higher than the five-year average. Another month without many excess deaths and 2021 will officially be an ‘average year’ for English mortality.
August 26, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, UK |
Leave a comment
Today, Dr. Anthony Fauci is a household hero to half of America. Drug companies, government officials and the pharma-funded corporate media invoke his name to justify lockdowns, masks and experimental vaccines. The other half do not look on him favourably.
A recent editorial in a leading medical journal urged Congress to make it a felony to publicly criticize Dr. Fauci.
Encouraging his own deification, Dr. Fauci has declared that all those who questioned his pronouncements are “anti-science.”
But who is Dr. Fauci really?
In my new book, I show that Dr. Fauci has done little to earn the sobriquet “America’s Doctor.”
Instead, he has survived 50 years as the J. Edgar Hoover of public health by consistently prioritizing Big Pharma profits over the welfare of his countrymen, and through mercenary homage to the chemical and agricultural industry, the military industrial complex, the intelligence apparatus and all the other pushers of pills, potions, powders, poisons, pricks and the police state.
During more than a year of painstaking and meticulous research, I unearthed a shocking story that obliterates the obsequious media’s spin on Dr. Fauci … and that will alarm every American — Democrat or Republican — who cares about democracy, our Constitution and the future of our children’s health.
In my book I reveal how Fauci:
- has been the principal architect of “agency capture” — the subversion of democracy by a drug industry that manipulates regulators like sock puppets.
- failed dismally over his 50-year career with the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to address the cause, to prevent or cure the exploding epidemics of allergies and chronic disease that Congress charged him with curtailing. The chronic disease pandemic is his enduring legacy. Those ailments now debilitate 54 percent of American children compared to 6 percent when he joined NIAD.
- repeatedly used fraud, bullying, intimidation, dissembling and falsified science to win approval for worthless and deadly drugs and vaccines.
- sabotaged safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments for AIDS while promoting deadly chemotherapy drugs that almost certainly caused more deaths than HIV.
- transformed NIAD from a public health regulator into an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs for which he and his trusted deputies often file patents and collect royalties. Dr. Fauci has claimed Moderna vaccine patent rights worth billions of dollars for NIAD and hand-picked at least four of his NIAD underlings to receive $150,000 annually from royalties.
- exercises dictatorial control over the army of “knowledge-and-innovation” leaders who appear nightly on TV to parrot his orthodoxies and “debunk” his opponents who run his crooked clinical trials globally and who populate the “independent” federal panels that approve and mandate drugs and vaccines — including the committees that allowed the Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccines.
- violated federal law to allow his pharma partners to sacrifice and kill hundreds of impoverished and dark-skinned children and orphans in the U.S and Africa as lab rats in deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.
- repeatedly concocted and weaponized fraudulent pandemics, including bird flu (2005), swine flu (2009) and Zika (2015-2016), in order to sell novel vaccines.
- partnered with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to conduct “gain-of-function” experiments to breed pandemic superbugs in poorly regulated labs in Wuhan, China and elsewhere, under conditions that virtually guaranteed the escape of weaponized microbes like SARS-CoV-2.
That’s just the short list.
Dr. Fauci and his band of pharma and Silicon Valley profiteers — working with corrupted politicians, captured federal agencies and the bought and brain-dead mainstream media — have used the COVID pandemic to mint billions from vaccines and other profitable medicines.
His disastrous mismanagement ran up one of the biggest COVID death counts among all nations.
Dr. Fauci has led the crusade to suppress functional remedies like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine which could have avoided 80 percent of the deaths and hospitalizations from COVID and ended the pandemic overnight.
We need to stop Dr. Fauci and the coup d’état against the Constitution, human rights and liberal democracy globally.
Because this book threatens their trillion-dollar vaccine enterprise, Dr. Fauci and his allies in the medical cartel, the media and military will hurl fierce criticism and use censorship — to debunk and silence “The Real Anthony Fauci.”
With your help, this book can play a transformational role in exposing Dr. Fauci as a charlatan and quack and in showing the world that Dr. Fauci, far from being a healer, is one the most noteworthy mass murderers in human history.
It is my hope that this book will motivate — and mobilize — millions more advocates for truth, health and democracy.
“The Real Anthony Fauci” publication date is Nov. 9. By pre-ordering your copy today, you’ll help push the book to bestseller status, diminishing the powers of the censors to silence me. Thank you.
August 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, HIV/AIDS, United States |
Leave a comment
In virtually every realm of public policy, Americans embrace policies which they know will kill people, sometimes large numbers of people. They do so not because they are psychopaths but because they are rational: they assess that those deaths that will inevitably result from the policies they support are worth it in exchange for the benefits those policies provide. This rational cost-benefit analysis, even when not expressed in such explicit or crude terms, is foundational to public policy debates — except when it comes to COVID, where it has been bizarrely declared off-limits.
The quickest and most guaranteed way to save hundreds of thousands of lives with policy changes would be to ban the use of automobiles, or severely restrict their usage to those authorized by the state on the ground of essential need (e.g., ambulances or food-delivery vehicles), or at least lower the nationwide speed limit to 25 mph. Any of those policies would immediately prevent huge numbers of human beings from dying. Each year, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), “1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world,” while “crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54.” Even with seat belts and airbags, a tragic number of life-years are lost given how many young people die or are left permanently and severely disabled by car accidents. Studies over the course of decades have demonstrated that even small reductions in speed limits save many lives, while radical reductions — supported by almost nobody — would eliminate most if not all deaths from car crashes.
Given how many deaths and serious injuries would be prevented, why is nobody clamoring for a ban on cars, or at least severe restrictions on who can drive (essential purposes only) or how fast (25 mph)? Is it because most people are just sociopaths who do not care about the huge number of lives lost by the driving policies they support, and are perfectly happy to watch people die or be permanently maimed as long as their convenience is not impeded? Is it because they do not assign value to the lives of other people, and therefore knowingly support policies — allowing anyone above 15 years old to drive, at high speeds — that will kill many children along with adults?
That may explain the motivation scheme for a few people, but in general, the reason is much simpler and less sinister. It is because we employ a rational framework of cost-benefit analysis, whereby, when making public policy choices, we do not examine only one side of the ledger (number of people who will die if cars are permitted) but also consider the immense costs generated by policies that would prevent those deaths (massive limits on our ability to travel, vastly increased times to get from one place to another, restrictions on what we can experience in our lives, enormous financial costs from returning to the pre-automobile days). So foundational is the use of this cost-benefit analysis that it is embraced and touted by everyone from right-wing economists to the left-wing European environmental policy group CIVITAS, which defines it this way:
Social Cost Benefit Analysis [is] a decision support tool that measures and weighs various impacts of a project or policy. It compares project costs (capital and operating expenses) with a broad range of (social) impacts, e.g. travel time savings, travel costs, impacts on other modes, climate, safety, and the environment.
This framework, above all else, precludes an absolutist approach to rational policy-making. We never opt for a society-altering policy on the ground that “any lives saved make it imperative to embrace” precisely because such a primitive mindset ignores all the countervailing costs which this life-saving policy would generate (including, oftentimes, loss of life as well: banning planes, for instance, would save lives by preventing deaths from airplane crashes, but would also create its own new deaths by causing more people to drive cars).
While arguments are common about how this framework should be applied and which specific policies are ideal, the use of cost-benefit analysis as the primary formula we use is uncontroversial — at least it was until the COVID pandemic began. It is now extremely common in Western democracies for large factions of citizens to demand that any measures undertaken to prevent COVID deaths are vital, regardless of the costs imposed by those policies. Thus, this mentality insists, we must keep schools closed to avoid the contracting by children of COVID regardless of the horrific costs which eighteen months or two years of school closures impose on all children.
It is impossible to overstate the costs imposed on children of all ages from the sustained, enduring and severe disruptions to their lives justified in the name of COVID. Entire books could be written, and almost certainly will be, on the multiple levels of damage children are sustaining, some of which — particularly the longer-term ones — are unknowable (long-term harms from virtually every aspect of COVID policies — including COVID itself, the vaccines, and isolation measures, are, by definition, unknown). But what we know for certain is that the harms to children from anti-COVID measures are severe and multi-pronged. One of the best mainstream news accounts documenting those costs was a January, 2021 BBC article headlined “Covid: The devastating toll of the pandemic on children.”
The “devastating toll” referenced by the article is not the death count from COVID for children, which, even in the world of the Delta variant, remains vanishingly small. The latest CDC data reveals that the grand total of children under 18 who have died in the U.S. from COVID since the start of the pandemic sixteen months ago is 361 — in a country of 330 million people, including 74.2 million people under 18. Instead, the “devastating toll” refers to multi-layered harm to children from the various lockdowns, isolation measures, stay-at-home orders, school closures, economic suffering and various other harms that have come from policies enacted to prevent the spread of the virus:
From increasing rates of mental health problems to concerns about rising levels of abuse and neglect and the potential harm being done to the development of babies, the pandemic is threatening to have a devastating legacy on the nation’s young. . . .
The closure of schools is, of course, damaging to children’s education. But schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialize, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.
Prof Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, perhaps put it most clearly when he told MPs on the Education Select Committee earlier this month: “When we close schools we close their lives.”
The richer you are, the less likely you are to be affected by these harms from COVID restrictions. Wealth allows people to leave their homes, hire private tutors, temporarily live in the countryside or mountains, or enjoy outdoor space at home. It is the poor and the economically deprived who bear the worst of these deprivations, which — along with not having children at all — may be one reason they are assigned little to no weight in mainstream discourse.
“The stress the pandemic has put on families, with rising levels of unemployment and financial insecurity combined with the stay-at-home orders, has put strain on home life up and down the land,” the BBC notes. But even for adults and those who are middle-class and above, severe and sustained isolation from community and life is bound to produce serious mental health harms, as two mental health experts I interviewed all the way back in April, 2020, warned.
None of this is to say that these are easy calculations. How COVID deaths or hospitalizations are weighed against the grave harms from anti-COVID restrictions is a complex question, one that almost certainly yields different answers in different countries and cultures. It may even yield a different policy answer in the same country as the virus and the social conditions which COVID produces evolve. One can debate how the contagiousness of COVID compares to the huge number of people who lose their lives or ability to lead healthy lives every year (so often, this argument is met with the more or less accurate but irrelevant distinction that COVID is contagious while car accidents are not: how does that bear on one’s willingness to endorse road policies (such as allowing driving cars at high speeds) that will inevitably kill large numbers of people or one’s refusal to consider the countervailing costs of anti-COVID measures?).
Put another way, this is not an argument in favor of or against any particular policy undertaken in the name of fighting COVID. What it is, instead, is an attempt to highlight the pervasive and deeply misguided refusal to assign any costs to the harms caused by anti-COVID policies themselves.
Perhaps this irrational mindset is explainable by the fact that COVID hospitalizations and deaths are more dramatic than the more insidious, lurking harms from sustained life disruptions. Perhaps the rapidly declining rates of child-rearing in the West make it more difficult to observe or care about the damage all of this is doing to the developmental abilities and mental health of children. Perhaps other factors — from a psychological desire for parental protection in the form of authoritarian power or a warped sense of “safetyism” — is rendering any cost-benefit analysis morally unacceptable. None of those speculative theories, however, accounts for the virtually unanimous refusal to consider a ban on cars or a 25 mph nationwide speed limit; that willingness to sacrifice huge numbers of lives by opposing life-saving automobile policies seems driven by the inconvenience such policies would impose on particular groups of people.
Whatever is true about motives, what is unacceptable — sociopathic, really — is the insistence on assigning severe costs to just one side of the ledger (harms from COVID itself) while categorically refusing to recognize let alone value the costs on the other side of the ledger (from severe, enduring anti-COVID disruptions to and restrictions on life). Given the reflexive rage that is produced when one tries to make this argument — what immediately emerges are accusations that one is indifferent to COVID deaths — I wanted to walk through the evidence and rationale demonstrating why this approach is reckless, immoral and irrational. That is the argument I examine in both this article and in a 30-minute video I produced for Rumble.
August 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment
For over a year, intensive research conducted by health experts has brought to light increasing concerns about “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE), a phenomenon where vaccines make the disease far worse by priming the immune system for a potentially deadly overreaction.
ADE is well known to occur with coronavirus vaccines that have been tested in animal experiments. The big question has been whether it will emerge in the billions of people who have now been vaccinated around the world.
According to OurWorldInData.org, 31.7% of the world population has been vaccinated with one or more covid vaccines as of the 21st August 2021. That’s around 2.4 billion people, and every single one of them has taken an unproven, experimental, potentially deadly medical treatment in possibly the largest experiment ever conducted on humanity.
But how many of these people will die from vaccine adverse events, including ADE?
Well, a new science paper published in the Journal of Infection appears to provide solid evidence that the Covid-19 injections being administered around the world will, without question, cause ADE effects in people when they are exposed to the Delta variant or potentially other coronavirus strains.

The study is entitled, Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination and explains that while the current injections may provide some level of immunity against the alleged original covid virus, they present an unfortunate side effect – The acceleration of “infection-enhancing antibodies” which overreact to Delta variant infections.
What the paper is describing is classic antibody-dependent enhancement, meaning a hyperinflammatory reaction can kill the person as their “primed” immune system overreacts to new infections.

The study concludes, “ADE of delta variants is a potential risk for current vaccines,” and it goes on to explain the mechanism by which this ADE is emerging –
Using molecular modeling approaches, we show that enhancing antibodies have a higher affinity for Delta variants than for Wuhan/D614G NTDs. We show that enhancing antibodies reinforce the binding of the spike trimer to the host cell membrane by clamping the NTD to lipid raft microdomains… facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).

The paper goes on to suggest that the original vaccines should be scrapped, and replaced with new, “second generation” vaccines that are engineered to attack the antigen targets of the Delta variant, but this would still be foolish because if the Covid-19 virus really exists then the virus will always mutate to a new form and evade the current injections on offer, no matter how many injections are administered to the world’s population.
Only natural immunity could ever put an end to this alleged pandemic because the current injections on offer do not prevent infection and do not prevent transmission.
With billions of people already injected, the findings of this scientific study suggest that it perfectly plausible that billions of people could die due to antibody-dependent enhancement or other devastating effects caused by the Covid-19 vaccines such as spike protein vascular damage, and evidence from Public Health England shows that it is already beginning to happen in the United Kingdom.

According to the report since the 1st February 2021 and the 15th August 2021 there have been 390 deaths among the unvaccinated population, an increase of 137 on the last count made in the previous report where the confirmed figure was 253 up to the 2nd August 2021. This equates to 0.2% of all confirmed infections among the unvaccinated population, in line with the average death rate seen since the alleged Covid-19 pandemic began.
However, up to the 15th August 2021 the fully vaccinated population has suffered a total of 679 deaths. This in an increase of 277 on the previous report where the confirmed figure was 402. It also equates to 0.9% of all confirmed infections among the fully vaccinated population. This suggests the Covid-19 vaccine actually increases the risk of death by at least 338% rather than reducing the risk of death by 95%.
This is what we’re seeing in the middle of summer, but winter is only around the corner and the evidence to suggest it’s going to be a rough one is overwhelming.
August 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism | ADE, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Dr Peter McCullough offers expert testimony to the LA House Oversight Hearing on Monday, August 16, 2021.
August 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Let’s save as many lives as we can. Below are some of the telemedicine doctors’ contact details who are providing early treatment for “COVID”.
Principia Scientific International scientists and medical experts largely agree that ‘COVID19’ is nothing more than influenza. However, being that many readers have contacted us for details of medical doctors willing and able to provide online prescriptions, we are posting their contact details below for your use.
Here are some of the telemedicine doctors providing early treatment for C19. Ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine http://exstnc.com Ivermectin https://covid19criticalcare.com/guide-for-this-website/how-to-get-ivermectin/… Fluvoxamine https://cityhealthuc.com/fluvoxamine
IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: This list of doctors and medical providers is ONLY a collection of information offered as a convenience to interested members of the public and is neither a recommendation of the provider nor a verification of the provider’s qualifications or practices, medical or otherwise.
DIRECTORY
Information is not guaranteed to be accurate. A particular medical professional currently may not be accepting new patients.
MULTIPLE COUNTRIES (Telemedicine)
Dr. Darrell DeMello +91-7718079507 darrelldemello@gmail.com
Dr. Fabio Lopes Bueno Netto +55 (11) 9 9118 5051 Tel / WhatsApp fabio@buenonetto.com (and face to face in São Paulo – Brasil)
AFGHANISTAN
Dr. M. Anwar Noor +93-775313155 anwarnoor285@gmail.com
ARGENTINA
States using IVM: Corrientes, Jujuy, Misiones, Pampa, Salta, Santa Cruz, Tucuman
Dr. Maria Victoria Moreno +54-911-5564-0216 victoriamorenocuttle@gmail.com (Buenos Aires)
AUSTRALIA
Dr. Peter Lewis (IVM) 03 9822 9996
AUSTRIA
Dr. Terezia Novotna novotna.terezia7081@gmail.com
BANGLADESH
Dr. Mohammad Tarek Alam 9120792 93
BELIZE
IVM approved by Belize’s Ministry of Health as a prescription treatment option for Covid-19
BERMUDA
Dr. Henry Dowling (441) 296-7296 office@aiih.net https://aiih.net
Dr. Paula Estwick (441) 293-5476 pestwick@nmac.bm https://www.nmac.bm
BOLIVIA
Bolivian government added IVM to its guidelines for treating coronavirus infections in May 2020
Dr. Andres Zurita +79606228793 andreszc1.11.111@gmail.com (consultations by telemedine for all Bolivia)
BRASIL (BRAZIL)
Cities using IVM: Belem, Fortaleza,Itajai, Paranagua, Porto Alegre, Porto Feliz
Dr. Wilton Adriano wadrianocc@gmail.com (Golania, Goias)
Dr. Felipe Dias Wanderley de Carvalho diasds1313@gmail.com (Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais)
Dr. Lucy Kerr 55 11 3287 3755 (São Paulo)
Dr. Maria de Fátima Gomes de Luna mfgdeluna@gmail.com (Fortaleza, Ceará)
Dr. Carolina Muniz carolina.munizferreira@yahoo.com (Rio de Janeiro)
Dr. Fabio Lopes Bueno Netto 55 (11) 9 9118 5051 Tel / WhatsApp fabio@buenonetto.com (São Paulo)
Dr. Jussara Resende 55 11 98825 6308 (São Paulo)
Dr. Claudia de Bessa Solmucci 55 31 4009 8200 cbsolmucci@gmail.com (Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais)
BULGARIA
Use of IVM for COVID-19 treatment is common
CANADA
Dr. Umbrine Fatima (Ontario only) (716) 407-3250 admin@myhealth360wellness.com myhealth360wellness.com
Prophylaxis, Active, Long COVID (appointments only … no walk ins)
CAMEROON
Dr. Sam Enoh samuelenohtanya@gmail.com
CZECH REPUBLIC
Physicians can prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients; then report it in the Infectious Diseases Information System
CUBA
HCQ available; IVM being tested for COVID-19 treatment
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
IVM is used widely both for prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19. Some doctors use HCQ as well.
Dr. José Natalio Redondo Galan josenatalioredondo@gmail.com
ECUADOR
Dr. Mario Zapata Casares drmzc@cidocenter.com
EGYPT
National treatment guidelines issued November 2020
EL SALAVDOR
Government sanctioned protocol includes IVM https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYmTD7kXsAIh2L_?format=jpg&name=large
FRANCE
IVM generally available for COVID-19 but patient may have to request it … IVM not included in national guidelines
GUATEMALA
Some municipalities are providing free Covid Kits to those who are sick. The kits include IVM and other items.
HONDURAS
Government approved protocol includes IVM and HCQ
HUNGARY
Clinical trial of IVM for COVID-19 treatment at the South Pest Central Hospital and the National Institute of Pulmonology
INDIA
Much of India has IVM available as a first line of treatment for COVID-19
Dr. Darrell DeMello 7718079507 (Mumbai) darrelldemello@gmail.com also treats long-hauler Covid-19
Dr. Jagadish G Donki 9845917230 (Bangalore) doctor333in@yahoo.co.in also treats long Covid-19 (Post Covid Syndrome)
Dr. Shashikanth Manikappa smanikappa@gmail.com1
Dr. Asiya Kamber Zaidi asiyazaidia@gmail.com
INDONESIA
Ivermectin permission to treat COVID-19 from the Food and Drug Supervisory Agency (BPOM) and from Ministry of Health
https://www.solotrust.com//read/37899/Indonesia-Pakai-Ivermectin-Untuk-Obat-Terapi-Covid-19#
IRELAND
Dr. Pat Morrissey patmorrissey74@protonmail.com
Dr. William ‘Billy’ Ralph 00353 53 91 36411 billy.ralph@usa.net
ITALY
IVM for COVID-19 information at: https://www.farmagalenica.it/ivermectina-contro-covid-capsule-galeniche-in-farmacia/
Prof. Andrea G Stramezzi, MD, PhD Send a Whatsapp to +39 351 5407910
JAMAICA
Ministry of Health & Wellness does not recommend for or against IVM in COVID-19 treatment (March 2021)
The Ministry recognizes that some doctors are using IVM for treatment of COVID-19
JAPAN
Dr. Haruo Ozaki, chairman, Tokyo Medical Association, recommends use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 patients (9 Feb 2021)
Tokyo Metropolitan Government plans clinical trials of Ivermectin for outpatient treatment of COVID-19 (30 Jan 2021)
MACEDONIA
IVM for COVID-19 treatment approved by MALMED Drug Agency for North Macedonia
MALAYSIA
Health Ministry and Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) clinical trials of Ivermectin for Covid-19
Malaysian Association for the Advancement of Functional and Interdisciplinary Medicine requested immediate Ivermectin use
MEXICO
States using IVM: Chiapas
Mexico City government is giving away COVID-19 kits with Ivermectin & Azythtromycin through kiosks.
Dr. Ariel Ortiz (866) 893-8005 https://obesitycontrolcenter.com
NAMIBIA
My Free Doctor +1 850-750-1322 Text http://www.myfreedoctor.com
NICARAGUA
National treatment guidelines issued January 2021
NIGERIA
Clinical trial approved in Lagos state for Ivermectin treatment of Covid-19
PANAMA
Government has approved and stockpiled IVM and HCQ
PARAGUAY
States using IVM: Alto Parna
PERU
National treatment guidelines issued January 2021
Dr. Gustavo Aguirre Chang Facebook: Gustavo Aguirre
Dr. Yiduv Pettyd Ordoñez Romero yiduv@hotmail.com
PHILIPPINES
A licensed physician may prescribe IVM off label at his/her own discretion in consultation with the patient
Dr. Allan A. Landrito 09323137060 dr.allan.landrito@gmail.com
POLAND
Dr. Włodzimierz Bodnar +48 16 677 00 79 https://przychodnia-przemysl.pl (treatment is with amantadine, not IVM)
PORTUGAL
Dr. Joaquim Sá Couto jsacouto@mac.com Consultório na Av. da Boavista Nº 117, no Porto/Portugal
Dr. José Manuel Sabino de Jesus sabinojesus@sapo.pt
SLOVAKIA
January 27, 2021: The Health Ministry approved the therapeutic use of IVM for six months
SOUTH AFRICA
Court order determines that physicians, on their own judgement, may prescribe IVM for treatment of COVID-19 (April 6, 2021)
Dr. Shankara Chetty 846102030 please WhatsApp
Dr. Erica Drewes 2 721 201 7036 https://drdrewes.agrista.com
Dr. Alex Ekonomakis 117961400
Dr. Chantelle Eybers 716248492 Dreybers@slendermed.co.za
Dr. Liandi Fourie 126530564
Dr. Hema Kalan 126632732 info@drhemakalan.com
Dr. Gerrie Lindeque 568172275 info@comppharm.co.za Whatsapp: 060 528 2910
Dr. Claudia Boitshoko Moloabi info@drclaudiamoloabi.com (IVM prescribed for Covid 19 prophylaxis)
Dr. Zodwa Ngobese 824449268
Dr. Gys du Plessis 104428929
Dr. Marna Turner 834724948
Dr. Mariska van Tonder 792899753
Dr. Clarice Van Vreden 012 259 1059 http://www.ifafimedical.com/contact
Dr. Gerhard Vosloo 123465935
Bendiga House 083/487-4797 info@bendigahouse.org.za https://www.bendigahouse.org.za/
My Free Doctor +1 850-750-1322 Text http://www.myfreedoctor.com
SPAIN
Dr. Nyjon Eccles 0207 224 4622 https://thenaturaldoctor.org/spanish-clinic/
SRI LANKA
Sarva Medical and Wound Care Clinic 076 101 4433 sarva.patient.data@gmail.com
Dr. K T Sundaresan drsundaresan@gmail.com
TAIWAN
Dr. Kai-Jow Tsai https://www.drtsaiclinic.com
TANZANIA
Dr. Leopoldo Salmaso +255 686655555 or +39 329 0044616 (Whatsapp & Telegram) Also for Italian expatriates
THAILAND
Dr. Aubonrutt Wannawisute LINE ID: audperio; 081-3063061
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Dr. Elias Barrios (868) 2219281 Instagram: dreliasbarrios
UNITED KINGDOM
Dr. Nyjon Eccles +44 (0)207 7224 4622 https://thenaturaldoctor.org
USA
(see below)
VENEZUELA
Government has approved COVID-19 treatment protocol includes IVM and HCQ
ZIMBABWE
The Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) has approved use of IVM for prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19
Dr. Jackie Stone https://www.facebook.com/jackie.stone.39794
—————————
USA
MULTIPLE STATES (Telemedicine)
Dr. Miguel Antonatos (855) 767-8559 https://text2md.com
(States: AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, GU, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, ND, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV)
Nicole Baldwin, ARNP FNP-BC https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/63477/new-patients/narnp
(States: AZ, CO, FL, IA, ID, IN, MA, MD, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NM, NY, WI, WY)
Anne Blanchette, PAC, FNTP https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/99043/new-patients/ablanchette
(States: AZ, FL, ID, IL, UT, WA)
Dr. Rafael F. Cruz www.RegenMedKy.com (Go to website and click blue TELEHEALTH box)
(States: AL, AK, CT, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, TN, WV)
Dr. Darrell DeMello +91-7718079507 darrelldemello@gmail.com (located in India; consults in the USA)
JP Denham, ARNP objectivehealthpartnership@pm.me https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/104928/new-patients/jdenham
(States: AZ, FL, ID, MD, MI, OR, WA)
Dr. Alieta Eck (732) 463-0303 eckmds@gmail.com
Dr. Harolyn C. Gilles (602) 909-6347 drlwright007@gmail.com (prescribe non-controlled substances such as IVM in all 50 states)
Dr. Syed Haider (281) 219-7367 Text or better yet sign up: http://www.drsyedhaider.com/
(States: AK, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY,
OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI, WY)
Glenmore Hendricks, RNP glenmore.hendricks@sipmd.com
(States: AZ, CA, IA, MA, MI, MT, OR, TX, VA)
Dr. Eder Hernández DMSc,PA-C (956) 546-2000; (956) 518-7444; (956) 731-6699 www.valleymedcovid19.com
Dr. Richard Herrscher (972) 473-7544 www.aircaremd.com
Dr. Peter Hibberd (561) 655-4477; (561) 725-2356 (text)
(States: FL, TX, CA, IL, CT, IN, KY)
Dr. Joseph N. Holmes (980) 264-9020 Text preferred
Dr. Mollie James www.IvermectinCan.com (telemedicine consults for prevention, active and long-haul)
(States: AR, IA, IL, KY, MO, OK)
Victoria James, APRN, FNP-C victoria@appleadayvirtucalclinic.com https://www.appleadayvirtualclinic.com/
(States: AZ, FL, MD, NV, OR, WA)
Dr. Rob Karas (479) 966-5088; (479) 770-4343 https://karashealthcare.com/
Dr. Kevin Kargman (856) 261-3068 Text
(States: AZ, CT, GA, ID, IN, KY, MI, NJ, OK, WV, WY)
Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C (360) 230-8070 https://ubucares.com $200 prophylaxis & active treatments with agreement of 2 follow-
(States: FL, UT, WA) up visits to assure safety. Long-haul for our primary care patients only. Call, text, or facetime appointments.
Janna Mustafina CRNP www.ecarenow.net
(States: AZ, CO, DC, FL, MD, NV, RI, UT, WY)
Dr. Ryan D. Partovi (760) 224-3033 www.drpartovi.com (Nationwide via Telehealth)
Dr. Clifford F. Porter (512) 553-1501 www.txmedicalcare.com
Dr. Felecia Sumner https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/16805/new-patients/fsumner
(States: AZ, FL, IL, NC, NJ, PA)
Dr. Keri Topouzian (248) 240-0450 askdrt@gmail.com prophylaxis, current infections, long covid
(States: CO, MI, TX)
Patricia Trafford, FNP (480) 496-8340 tricia@anewhealth.org http://www.anewhealth.org
Dr. Michael Uphues muphuesmagic@gmail.com
(States: FL, IL, IN, MT, NV, TN)
Harmony Vance, ARNP https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/23909/new-patients/harmony
(States: FL, MA, MD, NM, NV, WA)
Dr. Arnoldo Padilla Vazquez https://mycatholicdoctor.com/resources/doctors/arnoldo-padilla-vazquez-md/
(States: AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, KS, MD, ME, MN, MT, ND, NE, NH, NV, OK, OR, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY)
Dr. Marivic Villa (352) 561-6299; (352) 430-4460; Text only (352) 430-8166 VillaHealthCenter.com (Televisit anywhere in US)
Dr. Fred Wagshul (888) 788-9101 LungCenterofAmerica.org
Brian Weinstein MS APN NPC www.synergyhealthdpc.com (all 50 states)
Jennifer Wright MSN, ACP-C https://doctorsstudio.com/i-mask-covid-19-protocol/ (treatment available only via online purchase)
Dr. Anna Yoder, DNP Book an appt at: www.telehealthnp.com Prophylaxis $75; Covid+ $85, long haulers $115
(States: AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, LA, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NV, OR, PA, SD, WA, WV)
America’s Frontline Doctors https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.org/covid-19/how-do-i-get-covid-19-medication
iCareVIP (888) 447-7902 https://icarevip.com
My Free Doctor (850) 750-1322 Text http://www.myfreedoctor.com (all 50 states)
ALABAMA
Dr. David Calderwood (256) 535-5944
Rebecca Halechko, CRNP, FNP-BC (205) 624-4325 southernwellness@outlook.com
ALASKA
Renae Blanton, MSN, FNP-BC renae_b@yahoo.com
ARIZONA
Kayla Berns, RN, BSN (623) 524-4000
Sarah Fuller, FNP-C www.valleymobilemedical.com/covid-19-resources sarah@valleymobilemedical.com (for questions)
Same day appointments available if initiated by 10 am. Visits for treatment, prophylaxis, long-haul starting at $79.
Dr. David Jensen (480) 444-8715 djensenmedical@gmail.com
Dr. Karen E. Lee (520) 395-2220 https://www.tucsonfamilygeriatric.com
Zhanna Tarjeft, FNP-BC (480) 550-9551 z@sproutshealth.com www.sproutshealth.com
Dr. Todd Winton (480) 704-1050 https://activelifestyleclinic.com (In person and Telemedicine available)
ARKANSAS
Dr. Rob Karas (479) 966-5088; (479) 770-4343 https://karashealthcare.com/
Dr. Sharron Mason (501) 463-9079
CALIFORNIA
Dr. Margaret Aranda (800) 992-9280 dra@ArandaMDenterprises.com www.arandaMDenterprises.com
Dr. Joshua Batt https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/488/new-patients/jbatt (Free sign up and initial consult)
Dr. Jose R. Cilliani (714) 541-5252
Dr. Brenden Cochran (425) 361-7945 https://interactivehealthclinic.com (APPOINTMENT REQUIRED – BOOKED INTO SEPT. NO PREVENTATIVE CARE)
Dr. George C. Fareed (760) 351-4400
Dr. Sabine Hazan (805) 339-0221
Dr. Jorge L. Moreno (323) 726-6289 info@Center-For-Wellness.net (In person and telemedicine)
Dr. Alice Pien (949) 428-4500
Dr. Brian M.Tyson (760) 592-4351
Dr. Tom Yarema DrTom.com/IvermectinInfo
COLORADO
Tracy Dark, FNP (303) 481-8079
Siegfried Emme, FNP (970) 227-0526 ziggyrock1@msn.com www.lovelandmedicalclinic.com
Dr. Katia Meier (303) 790-7860 betterhealth@clearskymedical.com www.clearskymedical.com
CONNECTICUT
Dr. Martin Owen https://mycatholicdoctor.com/make-appointment/martin-owen-m-d/
Dr. Steven Phillips (203) 544-0005
Dr. Robban Sica (203) 799-7733 support@drsica.com www.centerhealingarts.org (prophylaxis, active, long haul)
FLORIDA
Dr. Michael Austin (813) 964-5901 COVID-19_Help@affinitywellness.net
Dr. Bruce Boros (305) 294-0011
Danielle Carrera DNP, APRN Please go to PushHealth.com and use code: DCARRERA (prophylaxis, exposed, positive)
Dr. William J. Cole, Jr. (941) 371-7171 email: DrCole@RetireThePandemic.Com
Janice A. Dennis, FNP, APRRN (561) 847-0573 (call or text) janiceicurn@bellsouth.net
Dr. Umbrine Fatima (716) 407-3250 admin@myhealth360wellness.com myhealth360wellness.com (Prophylaxis, Active, Long)
Dr. Bernard Garcia (954) 771-2111
Dr. Stephen E. Grable (904) 247-7455 drgrable.com
Vanessa Hamalian NP (941) 253-2530 Telemed for Florida only. $85/visit. Make telemed appt at: www.latitudeclinic.com
Dr. Peter H. Hibberd (561) 655-4477; 561-725-2356 (text)
Dr. Michael M. Jacobs (850) 912-2000
Dr. Nabeel Kouka (305) 280-0505 info@salus.md www.salus.md
Dr. Jasen Kobobel (321) 636-0005 (appointments only with patients already established with his practice)
Dr. Ben Marble (850) 776-5555
Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C (360) 230-8070 https://ubucares.com $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety
Dr. Angeli Maun Akey FIRRIMupDoctors@gmail.com (telemedicine)
Dr. William Nields . HeadwatersHealthJax@gmail.com
Dr. Juliana Rajter (954) 906-6000
Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter (954) 906-6000
Dr. Tara A. Solomon (954) 984-8892 Ext 1 www.drtarasolomon.com
Dr. Juan Pascal Suarez-Lopez (407) 843-0151
Dr. Andres Felipe Velasco (386) 574-1423
Brian Weinstein, NP (888) 329-0120
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (845) 537-2742 text for appointment https://www.vladimirzelenkomd.com
GEORGIA
Dr. Jason N. Cox (912) 632-6000
Dr. Jimmy A. Malaver jmalaver1@netzero.net prophylaxis for exposed medical personnel; treatment for sick outpatients
Dr. M. Todd Trebony (229) 454-5964 Juvenescence Medical Spa, 91 S Underwood St, Camilla, Ga 31730
USMed Clinic (678) 974-1240
IDAHO
Dr. Ryan N. Cole (208) 472-1082
Cynthia Culp NP-C, IFMCP (208) 888-6886 https://fmidaho.com
Joseph W. Petrie, PAC (208) 833-3773 contact@gemexpresscare.com www.gemexpresscare.com
ILLINOIS
Dr. Alan F. Bain (312) 236-7010 https://docintheloop.com
Dr. William Crevier (708) 349-0070 COVID-19 consultation, prophylaxis, treatment only in our office. Bring any labs, EKGs.
INDIANA
AccuDoc Urgent Care (812) 932-3224 https://www.accudocurgentcare.com
Melissa Donahue, FNP (765) 201-0746
Dr. A Brooks Parker (317) 300-4091 (call to schedule a Zoom meeting; ask for Dr. Parker)
KENTUCKY
Dr. James Buckmaster (270) 831-2004 http://corpuschristi-clinic.com also treats via telemedicine in Tennessee
MAINE
Dr. Dustin Sulak https://integr8health.com/
MARYLAND
Dr. Alan R. Vinitsky enlightened_medicine@yahoo.com
MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Kathleen O’Neil-Smith FIRRIMupDoctors@gmail.com (telemedicine) Medicare not accepted
MICHIGAN
Dr. Jacqueline Chirco (248) 302-0473 https://askdrt.weebly.com
Dr. James Lewerenz (248) 289-6643 longevityhealthinstitute@yahoo.com https://www.longevityhealthinstituteinc.com/
MINNESOTA
Catherine McCulley, CNP (605) 271-1020 cmcculley@2bhealthy.org www.marywuebbenwellness.com (office visit only)
MISSOURI
Dr. Helen Gelhot (314) 576-0094 md@privatemdstl.com 522 North New Ballas Rd. Suite 122; Creve Coeur, MO 63141
Timothy Hubbard, PA-C (417) 363-3900 info@417housecalls.com www.417housecalls.com
Keri Sutton, NP-C (417) 881-4994 integrativehealthcarespringfieldmo.com
Dr. Luke Van Kirk (417) 351-2900 covid@command.md www.command.md
NEVADA
Dr. Joshua Batt https://www.pushhealth.com/practices/488/new-patients/jbatt (Free sign up and initial consult)
Dr. Arezo M. Fathie (702) 407-9994
Dr. Harolyn C. Gilles (602) 929-6347 drlwright711@icloud.com (Scottsdale) $105 for COVID early or long-haul initial consult
James M. Gocke, APRN (775) 782-1610 jgocke@cvmchospital.org Ironwood Primary Care
Dr. Patrick G. Ticman (702) 877-5199
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dr. Robban Sica (203) 799-7733 support@drsica.com www.centerhealingarts.org (prophylaxis, active, long haul)
NEW JERSEY
Dr. Alieta Eck (732) 463-0303 eckmds@gmail.com
Dr. Eric Osgood (no phone calls) drohsogood@gmail.com prophylaxis, early treatment, longhaul
Jennifer Wright MSN, ANP-C www.doctorsstudio.com treatment is available only via online purchase
NEW MEXICO
Stephanie Wilks, FNP-C (575) 433-3000
NEW YORK
Dr. Robert J. Aquino (631) 547-4100
Kathleen Breault NP CNM (518) 944-1637 (Will provide telemedicine)
Dr. Umbrine Fatima (716) 407-3250 admin@myhealth360wellness.com myhealth360wellness.com (Prophylaxis, Active, Long)
Dr. Nabeel Kouka (305) 280-0505 info@salus.md www.salus.md
NORTH CAROLINA
Kenneth C. Farmer, ANP (910) 399-8666 https://pleasureislandhealth.com
Dr. Joseph N. Holmes (980) 264-9020 text preferred
Dr. Prachee Jain thehometowndoctor@gmail.com thehometowndoctors.com (COVID-19 positive only; no prophylaxis)
Dr. James Johnston Sign up: yourhomemedicalcare.com home-visit physician for patients within 30 mins of Charlotte beltway
Dr. Jodi Stutts (704) 360-5190 jodi519@hotmail.com (COVID-19 positive patients only; no prophylaxis)
Leslie Ware, PA-C, MEd (980) 949-6000 leslie@ahawdpc.com ahawdpc.com/home-2/
OHIO
Dr. Trent Austin (513) 845-4558 www.accudocurgentcare.com
Dr. A. Patrick Jonas (937) 427-7540
Dr. Jennifer Pfleghaar (567) 336-6001
Dr. Brad Schneider (234) 414-0215
Dr. Fred Wagshul (888) 788-9101
OKLAHOMA
Dr. Gayle Bounds (405) 224-6484 drdee55@earthlink.net
Dr. Curt Coggins (918) 245-1328 St. John Clinic, Ascension; Sand Springs. Practice is closed to new patients.
Dr. Randy Grellner (918) 725-1599
Dr. Jim Meehan (918) 600-2240 www.meehanmd.com
Laura Moreno, FNP (405) 861-0224
Dr. James Ross (918) 932-2909
Dr. Kerri Williams www.medclub.clinic (prophylaxis, current infection, long COVID)
PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Alexis S. Lieberman (215) 774-1166 only patients under age 18
Dr. Safiyya Shabazz (215) 924-2440 https://www.fountainmedonline.com/contact
Dr. Regina Smith (717) 795-9566
SOUTH CAROLINA
Carolina Health & Wellness Services (843) 996-4908 admin@chwpeds.com Telehealth for Virginia and South Carolina
Dr. Martin Owen https://mycatholicdoctor.com/make-appointment/martin-owen-m-d/
SOUTH DAKOTA
Catherine McCulley, CNP (605) 271-1020 cmcculley@2bhealthy.org www.marywuebbenwellness.com (office visit only)
TENNESSEE
Dr. George Graves; Danny Nelson FNP (423) 949-2171 DrGeorgeGraves@Gmail.com
Dr. Dawn Linn (615) 551-9707 drdawnlinn@gmail.com impressionshendersonville.com (COVID-19+ only; no prophylaxis)
TEXAS
Dr. Robin Armstrong (409) 938-5000
Dr. Kimberly Barbolla (903) 320-3200
Dr. Hong Davis (972) 867-5888 call or text. hormonedrd@gmail.com
Dr. Alison Garza (956) 393-2200 https://www.dralisongarza.net/contact
Susan Harris, MSN, CNM, FNP-C (972) 304-6400 tharris@lifestreammed.com http://lifestreammed.com
Dr. Eder Hernández DMSc,PA-C (956) 546-2000; (956) 518-7444; (956) 731-6699 www.valleymedcovid19.com
Dr. Richard Herrscher (972) 473-7544 www.aircaremd.com
Dr. Deborah M. Holubec (214) 509-9691 rpcc.dholubec@protonmail.com
Dr. Stella Immanuel (281) 530-1230
Dr. Imran Khan ihaw@protonmail.com
April E. López NP, MSN (956) 627-5555
Dr. Ivette Lozano (214) 660-1616
Cynthia Malowitz, ANP-BC, FNP-C (361) 937-2121 or (361) 937-2124 www.bayareaquickcare.com $35 telemedicine visit for uninsured
Raynell Odom, FNP (830) 391-0877
Dr. Russell Phillips (469) 916-4436 russellp@thecellspa.com www.thecellspa.com
Dr. Clifford F. Porter (512) 553-1501 www.txmedicalcare.com
Dr. Brian Procter (972) 562-8388
Wendy Starnes, APRN, NP (903) 320-3200
Dr. David Sheridan (281) 705-6690 dps@pmlctex.com Available for telemedicine – email or call
Dr. Cami Jo Tice-Harrouff, DNP camijo.ticeharouff@mycatholicdoctor.com
Dr. Ibidunni Omolayo Ukegbu (469) 453-2008 https://pearlmedclinic.com
Dr. Barry Ungerleider https://preventionwithivermectin.com Telemedicine consult $250 if RX issued
Dr. Richard G. Urso (713) 668-6828
UTAH
Dr. David Jensen (480) 444-8715 djensenmedical@gmail.com
Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C (360) 230-8070 https://ubucares.com $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety
VIRGINIA
Carolina Health & Wellness Services (843) 996-4908 admin@chwpeds.com Telehealth for Virginia and South Carolina
Dr. Mary Ellen Gallagher (703) 527-6664 dr.meg@comcast.net including pediatric care
WASHINGTON
Dr. David D. Bot psychiatry520@gmail.com
Dr. Brenden Cochran (425) 361-7945 https://interactivehealthclinic.com (APPOINTMENT REQUIRED – BOOKED INTO SEPT. NO PREVENTATIVE CARE)
Dr. Carrie Hardy (360) 629-2222 https://stanwoodintegrativemedicine.com
Dr. Michelle Eva Morholt, DNP, FNP-C (360) 230-8070 https://ubucares.com $200 prophylaxis or active, 2 follow-up visits for safety
WISCONSIN
Dr. Kristen Lindgren (920) 737-1625 www.Lindgren.Health
Dr. Steven Meress (920) 922-5433 nurse@foxvalleywellness.com https://foxvalleywellness.com
Dr. Kristen Reynolds goldenreyenergy@gmail.com https://www.goldenreyenergy.com
Dr. John E. Whitcomb (262) 784-5300 info@LiveLongMD.com (early and long COVID-19 patients)
August 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Robert Dingwall, a Professor at Nottingham Trent University and a leading sociologist, has written an excellent piece for Social Science Space criticising the imposition of mask mandates, given the paucity of evidence that masks interrupt transmission and the lack of any robust evaluation of the harms masks cause.
First, Professor Dingwall looks at the two main sources of evidence purporting to show that masks are effective.
One is studies at various scales of the impact of mask mandates on reported infection rates. These may compare cities, states, provinces or entire nations using time series data to look for inflections of rates that may be attributable to the mandates. A great deal of mathematical ingenuity has been expended in trying to control for the numerous confounders from biases in reporting, differences in diagnosis, leads and lags in public behaviour in response to the mandates, seasonal fluctuations, mobility – the list is almost endless. By the time these manipulations are complete, though, it is very difficult to conclude that there is any clear and obvious effect. Infection rates do not seem to vary much between comparable communities regardless of the NPIs that have been introduced. I have yet to see a study that identifies a clear and unequivocal benefit from a mask mandate in the form of an obvious inflection point attributable to the intervention. For all the reasons cited, this would be hard to find so perhaps we should not treat its absence as conclusive proof of a lack of benefit so much as something that is consistent with the RCT evidence that any benefit is likely to be minimal.
The other main source of evidence is laboratory studies of the properties of masks using techniques from physics and engineering. Some studies treat masks as a straightforward air filtration experiment. These are well-controlled and reproducible, but bear little resemblance to real-world conditions. The more sophisticated studies use mannikins to create a jet of air carrying inert particles into a controlled space, mimicking human exhalation. Masks can then be used to interrupt the air flow. The resulting measurements are the basis for computational models that provide more general descriptions of the spread of particles, which may be used to create video simulations. These studies are often elegant but suffer familiar problems in generalising to real-world environments. Within reason, the experimenter can manipulate the average velocity of the jet, the size of particles and the permeability of the mask in ways that aim to mimic breathing at different rates, coughing or sneezing. To get reliable measurements, including video or photographic evidence of the dispersion of the particles, the simulated exhalations must enter still air. Air, however, is never still in the real world. In any space there are thermal currents that are moving air around and dispersing exhalations in ways that are not captured, and probably cannot be captured, by the experimenter in a physically meaningful way. The efficacy of masks is also sensitive to the choice of particle size. If the experimenter favours droplets, larger particles, masks capture these quite well – but they also fall quickly to the ground and are unlikely to be inhaled by anyone at a normal social distance. If the experimenter favours aerosols, smaller particles, these are likely to pass through or around cloth masks, whose pore size is typically significantly larger than the aerosol particles. In which case the masks may filter a small proportion of the particles but probably let most through or around the edges. Where higher quality masks have been mandated, the community evidence runs into the same problems as before.
Having concluded that neither body of evidence is remotely persuasive, he then turns to the potential harms that masks do.
The precautionary principle also requires a proper evaluation of the potential harms. Few such studies have actually been done but relevant issues can readily be identified. Four are clearly important. First, they discriminate against a large group of people with communicative disabilities of speech and hearing, with neurodisabilities, such as autism or Aspergers, or with mental health issues, such as prior trauma from confinement as an abused child or as a survivor of sexual assault. Second, they discriminate against people who have medical consequences such as acute skin infections, eye infections or respiratory infections as a result of mask use. In the pre-pandemic world, such people could find workplaces where these issues were avoided but they cannot escape the mandates. Third, there is the impact on child development, particularly in relation to language and social interaction. The American Academy of Pediatrics claimed that there was no evidence for this, but there is a substantial body of research from psychology, education and linguistics establishing the importance of observing faces, particularly for small children. Fourth, and perhaps hardest to measure, there is the impact on community levels of fear and anxiety. This, indeed, has been the ultimate fall-back for committed advocates of masks – they may not have an impact on the transmission of the virus but they remind everyone that there is a pandemic going on and that they should be cautious every time they set foot outside their home – the safety of the home is assumed, of course. The consequence, of course, is that we are nudged towards regarding our fellow human beings as no more than potential vectors of infection. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent. The trust on which everyday life depends in modern societies is fatally compromised.
He concludes that mask mandates should never have been introduced, given the paucity of the evidence and the lack of research into potential harms.
If we do not think it is acceptable to have our lives ordered in ways that discriminate against large sections of the population, that impair the development of children, that damage the mental health of the nation and that make each of us fearful of the other, then it is time to hold the advocates of masking to account for the quality of evidence. It is simply too fragile to justify coercive measures, whether by the state or by private actors. Why has there been so little investment in RCTs? Why are mask advocates now arguing that RCTs would be unethical because the benefits are obvious, when they patently are not? It is more unethical to perpetuate a practice without evidence than to challenge one’s preconceptions. This is truly how science progresses and debate should be conducted.
Worth reading in full.
August 23, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment

Once upon a time in a prosperous land, a rumor swept across the kingdom that there was an invisible vapor floating through the air. Many vapors had come before, but this one was so extraordinary, it called for an extraordinary response.
This vapor, the town criers cried, could kill you at any time, anywhere. You could get it by talking, breathing, or singing. You could get it by standing or walking too closely to someone. You could even get it by playing. And the scariest thing of all—you could get it and not even know you had it.
The only way to escape was to hide indoors, keep away from people, and rub your hands with a clear jelly every time you touched something. Merchants stopped trading, apprentices stopped learning, and people stopped seeing people.

Every day, the town criers yelled out the number of people who had caught the vapor, although most didn’t know it since they felt the same as usual—just a lot more scared. They only learned they had it because of a certain spell a sorcerer had written down before the vapor came. The sorcerer had said it wasn’t supposed to be cast for vapors and couldn’t tell people if they had caught a vapor or not. But the sorcerer had died, and the king’s counselors decided to cast the spell, anyway, and that is how people found out they had the vapor.
The town criers shouted the latest death tolls so often their voices grew hoarse. Almost every one who died was very, very old or very, very sick or very, very fat. Hardly anyone else died, and at the end of the year, it would turn out about the same number had died as had in other years.

Still, it was a very scary vapor, and the entire kingdom had to change for the good of the public. The land was no longer prosperous, but the king just minted more coins and tossed them out to his subjects so they wouldn’t notice right away.
Eventually, people were told they could come out of hiding and the marketplace could open back up if everyone followed a few rules. They had to wear a hot, scratchy hat that covered their ears and eyes so the vapor couldn’t get into their earholes or eyeholes. They had to hop five times forward and five times backward if they accidentally got too close to another person. And, of course, they had to rub their hands with jelly after touching anything.

Some people thought the hats looked silly and were even a little dangerous since they made it hard for them to hear and see and made them sweat in the summer. The hopping took so much time, people weren’t able to get much done. When those people didn’t wear the hats or hop around, the rest of the people got very, very angry and said it was their fault people were dying and getting sick and couldn’t live the way they used to live. Some even took to wearing two or more hats for extra protection against the anti-hatters and anti-hoppers.

Every so often, the king would tell people to hide back inside again because too many people were catching the vapor. They couldn’t work or shop or visit people they loved. There wasn’t much to do besides lie around listening to the town criers, who always let people know how scared and angry and resentful they should all feel, especially toward the anti-hatters and anti-hoppers.
Suddenly, people started feeling more hopeful. A few witches who were richer than all the world’s kingdoms and queendoms combined offered to make a potion people would need to swallow every so often to keep them safe from the vapor—but it would only work if everyone drank it together.

It took a few months, but eventually the witches each had their own flavor—grape and orange and tropical punch—and they were ready to pour them into people’s mouths. Whenever potions had been made in the past, the witches had had to spend years and years making sure it was safe before giving it to people. This time, though, the vapor was so scary, they skipped all those steps so people could be saved sooner. They even got the king to issue a special decree so no one could hurt the witches if anything bad happened to them after drinking the potion. The king gathered three-quarters of the coins he had collected from the people that year and presented them to the witches.

Almost everybody couldn’t wait to drink the grape or orange or tropical punch potion. They bragged about going to get it and told everyone after they got their first and second drinks. When they came across someone who didn’t want to drink it, they got very, very cross. The town criers told everyone to yell at the anti-drinkers because it was their fault they couldn’t go back to life like it was before the vapor.
Something strange happened after people started drinking the potion. Some of them caught the vapor, anyway, but that was because it was a version of the vapor the witches hadn’t planned for—still, it was important to drink both doses of the potion because it was better than not drinking them. To be safe, though, the town criers said they should go back to wearing hot hats and hopping—although most hadn’t stopped to begin with because they were afraid of what would happen if they did (or worse, they might be mistaken for an anti-hatter, anti-hopper, or anti-drinker).

Even stranger, some of the people who had drunk the potion died either right after or not long after drinking it. Unlike the people who died from the vapor, these people were often very, very young or very, very healthy or very, very fit. The town criers never shouted about these deaths. If anyone brought it up, they called them an anti-hatter, anti-hopper, and anti-drinker.
Being an anti-drinker was the worst of all because everyone knows you need to drink to survive. If you’re against drinking the potion, you must surely be against drinking water, too, and we all know you can’t live without drinking water.
Not everyone who drank the potion died. Some just had peculiar things happen to their bodies. They shook all the time or got rare diseases or noticed parts of their bodies stopped working. They were bedridden or lame or hurt in different ways and couldn’t live the way they did before or even after the vapor. The town criers didn’t tell anyone about these people, either.

And then there were the drinkers who felt perfectly fine … for now. The potion had never been tried for longer than a few months, so no one was really sure what would happen in the next year or two or longer. It was also a different kind of potion than anyone had ever drunk before. This potion changed something inside you that could never be undone. People would also need to drink new versions of the potion every few months, and the king would need to continue giving three-quarters of the kingdom’s coins to the witches forever, or at least as long as the kingdom existed.

All the surviving drinkers were grateful to the witches and thanked them for saving their lives. They proudly displayed a mark on their chin that meant they’d drunk the potion. The ones who’d drunk it twice had two marks.
Those who didn’t have any marks were to blame for the kingdom’s problems. They weren’t permitted to shop in the marketplace or work or apprentice or take part in any public activities. They were shamed and shunned for being a threat to the people of the land. These people started to feel like they should leave the kingdom, but they weren’t allowed to travel without the double marks, and besides, all the other kingdoms and queendoms were the same as theirs, anyway. There wasn’t anyplace left where people weren’t afraid of the vapor and where they didn’t demand that everyone drink the potion.
Soon, the king decided the anti-drinkers were so dangerous, they would need to be locked in a dungeon until they agreed to drink the potion. They were free to choose whichever flavor they liked. If they decided not to drink, they would simply remain in the dungeon. It was entirely up to them.

One year passed, and then another. There were fewer and fewer people left in the kingdom. Eventually, so few people were left, the king could no longer collect enough coins to pay the witches. The rest of the kingdoms and queendoms around the world were in the same fix. They decided to join together into one king-queendom so they could collect enough coins to buy the potion.
After eight more years passed, there weren’t enough people left in all the world to cover the witches’ dues. The rulers decided everything that belonged to the people now belonged to the king-queendom. The people could still live in their hovels, but they wouldn’t own anything. They could earn their keep through labor—indeed, they might be put to work making the potion!

People no longer needed to decide what they wanted to do or be in life because the king-queendom would decide for them. People didn’t need to pay for anything because all the subjects got equally small amounts of the necessities. Everyone looked the same, acted the same, and thought the same.
Most people didn’t remember what it was like before the vapor. Some didn’t even know there was such a time.
The rulers, on the other hand, never wanted for anything. Nor did their friends, the town criers. The witches were the wealthiest of all—and deservedly so, as they had saved the world from the deadly vapor.

It wasn’t long before there were no more subjects. The rulers, the counselors, the town criers, and the witches had all the earth’s riches to themselves, and they lived happily ever after.
If you liked this post from Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass, why not share it? You can also Buy Me a Coffee, donate via PayPal,
© Margaret Anna Alice, LLC
August 22, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment