Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Whatever politicians are, they aren’t rational

By Paul Collits | The Conservative Woman | July 31, 2021

THERE are two sources of support for those who find conspiracies behind the creation of the Covid State, who believe that it must all be about ‘something else’.

One is the ‘they know they are lying’ argument of former Pfizer executive and research scientist Mike Yeadon and others, who suggest that even if the politicians don’t fully realise that the Wuhan virus is not a global threat, their public health advisers surely do. They therefore MUST know that they are telling lies, day after day. If they are lying, why?  Who or what is behind the Covid State’s lies? On this view, there must be something hidden and menacing in play.

The second source of support for seeing Covid conspiracies is the fact that so many of the decisions taken by democratic governments are so patently stupid and pointless. So much of what has passed for rational decision-making – ‘we are simply following the science’ – is risible. Locking up the healthy rather than protecting the vulnerable? Making people wear masks that, for decades, we have known not to work? Allowing people with life-threatening illnesses to die for want of attention from supposedly stretched hospitals and doctors? Wrecking the economy? Changing the rules every other day on a whim? Spending billions on contact-trace technology that achieves nothing save spreading further needless panic? The very idea that governments can control, let alone eliminate, rapidly spreading viruses?

Now, there are a number of explanations other than the two obvious ones – conspiracy or stuff-up – that seek to explain the flight from rationality of our politicians and their ‘expert’ advisers these past eighteen months. Elementary political science tells us that there are several models of decision-making seeking to explain why politicians do the things they do.

One theory is called ‘the rational actor model’, and it might well sum up what the ordinary punter believes to be abilities and motivations of governments. This model assumes that well-informed politicians with a clear understanding of the problem to be solved think through the options and make the best choice. Perhaps even use some cost-benefit analysis. Clarify the problem, list the options, weigh the issues carefully, consider likely outcomes, recognise the downsides of any actions taken, be consistent, measure success (evaluate) with standardised and agreed methods.

I know – try not to laugh. But the rational actor model probably best described how the bureaucracy used to work. Frank, fearless advice based on research and understanding of issues was offered to elected officials by disinterested public servants. That proposition is now as naïve as believing that their political masters are rational actors.

But you would like to think that politicians should aspire to be well-motivated, well-informed and determined to achieve the best outcome possible for the good of the country or state over which they preside.

Yet we seem to be falling very, very short of the ideal. Politicians are nowadays greedy, motivated by career, factionalised, prone to lying, controlled by outside interests, fearful of losing their power and seemingly willing to do anything to get off the hook. They are patently driven by the enjoyment of power, accessing the perks of office, protecting their mates, setting up post-political career opportunities and settling scores. There is little evidence that they are focused on problem solving (as per the rational actor model), even remotely interested in it or equipped to do it.

A second model of decision-making has been called ‘bounded rationality’. This is the idea that time-poor politicians facing complex problems do not seek the best policy, but are satisfied with an ‘acceptable’ solution, achieving as good an outcome as can be expected under the circumstances.

A third model of decision-making is called ‘incrementalism’. This suggests that no political decision is made in isolation. Every decision builds on what is already there. Its chief advocate (an American called Charles Lindblom) calls the approach ‘muddling through’.

A fourth model is that democracies consist of interest groups all vying for influence over decision-making, and that politicians simply respond to these interest groups in the decisions they make. They especially respond to loud, persistent, clever, monied interest groups. Like Big Pharma, perhaps? Or Big Tech? If this sounds corrupt, it is.

A fifth model of politics – public choice theory – suggests that politicians and bureaucrats have selfish interests like voters and like sellers and buyers in the marketplace that is the economy, and that they make decisions according to this self-interest. Leaders look out for number one. This is getting very warm, and isn’t remotely surprising. Nothing has been so clear during the Covid affair as the self-interest of politicians.

So, we have an array of theories trying to explain how politicians make decisions.  But nothing, nothing, in the study of politics or of decision-making explains fully why governments all over the world simultaneously threw sanity out the window in seeking to deal with a middling, flu-like virus.

Two conclusions can confidently be reached, however. One is that to date there hasn’t been a sliver of very thin paper between the major parties on Covid policy. Right, left or centre, they are all equally panicked, all pandering to the fear in the community that they themselves have created, all scared witless – in the age of the social media pile-on – of instant electoral retribution. All are ignoring science, all are either crushing dissent or ridiculing those (few) who question their approach, and none are remotely able or willing to ask their advisers hard questions, and in doing so to act as our representatives in a quest for the truth.

The second conclusion relates to something called the ‘Overton Window’, which explains what governments are willing and unwilling to do when making decisions. How far they feel comfortable going. It is their window of opportunity (named after the guy who thought this model up), their area of safety, the constraints that stop them doing anything too ‘courageous’, as the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby would have said.

Another name for this is the ‘meerkat theory of politics’. Meerkats emerge from their hidey-holes and look around to see what dangers there are and what possibilities are open to them. Our Covid politicians are like meerkats. They see what they might be able to get away with. They venture a little farther from the hidey-hole, but still look over their shoulders for electoral danger.

What the political class has done since March 2020 is massively to expand the Overton Window. The political science textbook has been thrown out and a new set of theories is needed to explain why freedom and economies have been destroyed.

We-the-people have allowed them to do this. We have let them throw away the rule book. Like the slowly boiling frog, we have sat there doing almost nothing, saying almost nothing, while our freedoms have been trashed. Now we are willing to stay locked in our home for no good reason, to bump elbows with friends, to dob in our neighbours for doing nothing remotely wrong or dangerous, to watch breathlessly every new announcement by a health bureaucrat, to tell the Government our whereabouts, to bow before the violent actions of thug-police, to have experimental, yet-to-be-approved drugs injected into our bodies, and to abuse anyone who won’t do these things.

Whatever else they are, our leaders are not being remotely rational. And yes, as Mike Yeadon says, they ARE lying and they must know their decisions are stupid and, on balance, massively harmful.

What on earth is the rule book for that?

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Mask-free Sweden nears zero daily Covid deaths

Chief epidemiologist warns against ‘far-reaching conclusions’ about Delta strain

RT | July 31, 2021

As the CDC urges Americans to mask up against the Delta variant, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist has argued that more data is needed about the strain’s infectiousness. His mask-free nation is hovering at zero Covid deaths per day.

Anders Tegnell said on Friday that there was “a lot we do not know” about Delta and cautioned against drawing “far-reaching conclusions” about the coronavirus strain. He noted that the variant had been circulating in Sweden “for quite some time” with little effect, particularly in high-risk settings such as nursing homes.

His comments were made in response to newly released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggesting the Delta strain is more transmissible and could potentially cause more severe illness. The New York Times and other media outlets ran stories reporting that the CDC now believes the Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox – but this comparison didn’t seem to impress Tegnell.

“It is difficult to say how contagious Delta is, [as] when it comes to chickenpox, we have been able to follow the disease for several years. The infectivity [of Delta] seems to be very uneven – in some cases, one person infects a hundred people, then we have other occasions when an infected person does not infect anyone at all,” he told Sweden’s Aftonbladet.

In separate remarks, he pointed to the fact that one-third of the country’s municipalities reported zero new Covid cases over the past week. At the same time, there was an uptick in cases among young people in Stockholm and other large cities.

And while US health authorities are pressing Americans in “high transmission” areas to mask up, Sweden dropped its last remaining mask recommendation – related to public transport – on July 1. While Sweden’s public health agency has supported measures such as social distancing and remote working, it has no recommendations for the use of face coverings in public spaces.

Reviled by the media for refusing to impose harsh lockdowns, Sweden’s less draconian approach to the health crisis appears to be paying off: The Scandinavian nation has recorded a total of eight Covid-linked deaths so far this month, an average of 0.25 deaths per day. While it’s possible this number will increase due to reporting lags, deaths have undoubtedly plummeted over the past several months. On June 4, Sweden reported 13 deaths – more than the entire month of July.

Daily hospitalizations have also hovered near zero in July: On most days this month, the country saw between 0-2 Covid-cases requiring hospital treatment. At the same time, daily cases have fallen sharply since April. … Full article

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Neil ‘Master Of Disaster’ Ferguson Gets It Wrong AGAIN

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | July 26, 2021

Professor Neil Ferguson, the controversial epidemiologist who predicted there would be as many as 200,000 COVID cases a day in the UK if restrictions were lifted, is facing scrutiny after infections continued to drop for the 6th day in a row.

The day before so-called ‘freedom day’ in England, where most mask mandates and social distancing restrictions were lifted, Ferguson was asked by the BBC’s Andrew Marr where the country was heading as a result.

“It’s very difficult to say for certain, but I think 100,000 cases a day is almost inevitable,” said Ferguson, adding, “The real question is do we get to double that or higher? We could get to 200,000 cases a day.”

The professor went on to warn of “major disruption” to the NHS and the interruption of elective surgeries.

Ferguson is being proven wrong by the statistics once again, which today showed there were 24,950 new coronavirus cases, the sixth consecutive daily fall.

“Lockdown zealots will attribute this decline to the vaccines, but that begs the question of why they weren’t confident the vaccines would prevent cases from surging when they predicted armageddon last Monday?” asks Toby Young.

As Christopher Snowdon highlights, the scientists who claimed England’s unlocking represented “a threat to world” are also being proven spectacularly wrong. SAGE government advisers who claimed that relaxing restrictions was “a dangerous and unethical experiment” also face embarrassment.

The issue once again begs the question; Why does the government continue to follow advice given by arch-lockdown advocates who have got it wrong time and time again?

Don’t forget that it was Ferguson who infamously warned that half a million Brits would die without a draconian lockdown, despite the fact that countries like Sweden which didn’t impose lockdown had similar waves and infection rates.

Not only has Ferguson repeatedly proven himself to be totally unreliable (after having already disgraced himself during the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak), but he infamously betrayed what he really thought about the severity of the pandemic via his own behavior.

During the first lockdown, when Ferguson himself was predicting up to half a million deaths, the professor took the threat of the virus so seriously, he allowed his mistress to violate the rules by traveling back and forth across London to continue the pair’s sordid affair.

“It’s OK when we do it!”

Principia Scientific International editor’s note: For those who are not familiar with Neil Ferguson’s record:

This is from the BBC virus webpage yesterday:

As you can see, new cases are falling rapidly.

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

COVID PCR Tests Recalled by FDA? Only One Test Recalled – Dozens Remain

By Michael Kane | NY Teachers for Choice | 7-25-21

On July 21, 2021, the FDA announced a recall of the CDC’s February 2020 PCR test. What this precisely means is creating a lot of confusion on social media.

Here is my take confirmed by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler:

Back in February of 2020 The CDC rushed a PCR test to market that was subpar and created false negatives and false positives like crazy (way worse than what we have today). I remember distinctly at that time Dr. James Lyons-Weiler slamming the CDC for this debacle that so deeply disgusted him as a scientist. Weiler blamed the entire thing on CDC’s greed to own the patent of the test approved in the US.

The CDC then went and created a new PCR testing platform in March and THAT is the basis for the more than 100 PCR tests on the market today. So all the FDA did recently was revoke the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the original CDC test that is no longer in use anyway because everyone has known for over 16 months that it is a garbage test.

I have sent an email to three of TEACHERS FOR CHOICE core attorneys as well as Dr. James Lyons-Weiler asking Dr. Weiler to clear up the confusion that is resulting. I am sure he will be able to get us 100% accurate info in minutes as this falls within his area of expertise.

We will post more as soon as we know more.

UPDATE – Within one hour of sending an email to Dr. James Lyons-Weiler asking him to confirm my below analysis he responded. Dr. Weiler’s full email response is included below:

***

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler’s email response on 7-25-21 below:

This is only about the CDC’s original test. It was flawed:

“CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel”

That is the precise name of the test that CDC designed after it refused to adopt the test that had been developed in Germany. There has been speculation that this means that they might drop PCR testing all together however I believe that is unlikely.

The Smoking Gun is the use of a lower CT threshold for people who have been vaccinated. CDC is only reporting breakthrough cases with CT less than 28 and dead or hospitalized. They are reporting in the unvaccinated CT up to 38 or 39. This will bias the reports and make it look like Delta or other variants are occurring only in the unvaccinated.

They know precisely what they’re doing, we called them out on it. The mainstream media and the so-called fact-checkers said that we were wrong, but if you look at the CDC’s website it’s exactly what they’re doing.

This blatant in-your-face biasing of Public Health Data reporting and should be grounds for dismissal and or imprisonment. It is, in my view, falsification of public health records.

I hope this is helpful.

Our approach (at IPAK) is to conduct research on positive and negative PCR cases using Sanger sequencing to determine whether SARS CoV-2 is present or not, and what other pathogens might be present in people who are sent home to wait to see if they get sick enough for emergency care.

See the NAATEC page at http: ipaknowledge.org

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Face it, we are not immortal

By Manfred Horst | The Conservative Woman | July 30, 2021

WHEN Boris Johnson said in October 2020 that the median age of Covid fatalities was above life expectancy, he was clearly on to something. It is a pity, and a terrible mistake of historical dimensions, that he – and so many others – did not drive their reasoning to the logical conclusions, let alone act on them.

The following is a translation and adaptation of an article which appeared on the German blog Achse des Guten (Axis of the Good) a few days before Johnson’s remarks were made public through his former adviser Dominic Cummings. The numbers are from official German statistics; the percentage distributions derived from those numbers are remarkably similar across the whole Western world.

***

In the course of the last 150 years, mankind has landed many notable successes in its fight against disease and death, against infant and maternal mortality. It has thus raised the average age of death in the Western world from 35 years to around 80 years. (1)

Some people still die at a younger age, but fortunately far fewer than in earlier times. A total of 939,520 people died in Germany in 2019, with the following distribution in age groups: (2)

Mortality Table Germany 2019

With the ageing of our population, the total number of deaths has been increasing steadily in recent years. (3) However, the mean age of death and the percentage distribution among age groups have remained relatively constant ; (4,5) they are also fundamentally similar across all countries of the Western world. (6)

For almost one and a half years now, we have been kept in anxiety and fear with the daily cumulative figures of ‘corona deaths’. (7) The age distribution of these deaths ‘with coronavirus’ (the official denomination, i.e. death of a person with a positive test, not necessarily from a viral pneumonia) in Germany up to June 29, 2021, looks as follows: (8)

Mortality table ‘with coronavirus’, Germany 2020/21 :

One may compare the percentage age distribution of these ‘corona deaths’ with the one of the general population and ask the following questions :

– How do the ‘corona deaths’ differ from the natural mortality table ?

– For which subgroups, if any, would it make sense to explore life-prolonging measures?

– Which age groups should be considered in such a discussion about possible life-prolonging measures?

Don’t the deaths ‘with coronavirus’ (i.e. with a positive PCR test) look as though they are part of the normal and unpreventable death pattern in Germany? Is this not the basic hypothesis that every statistician or epidemiologist worth his or her salt would have enounced if it weren’t for the fact that we have entered an era of extraordinary public hysteria? Also, these figures are remarkably similar everywhere in the world – no matter which measures had been taken against the Coronavirus, see for example in Sweden. (9)

Since the virus does nothing to neonates, children and adolescents – or perhaps because they have so far been submitted to fewer tests – people ‘with corona’ actually reach an average age which is a little higher than that of the rest of the population.

In statistical terms, the coronavirus (or rather the positive PCR test) is a ‘random variable’ with regards to the result ‘death’ – like athlete’s foot or wearing red socks. Of course, severe forms of respiratory infections caused by / with SARS-CoV-2 do exist. Of course, medicine is obliged to help and support each and every one of the people affected. Of course, individual cases can be heartbreaking. Of course, NHS capacities may be stretched during the winter (they generally are). On average, however, the ‘corona deaths’ would have left this world at the same time, with corona or from (or with) another virus or another disease.

All those calculations of allegedly lost lifetime (10) claim that the cohort (group) of people who had died ‘with corona’ would have reached an average age of well beyond 90 years, had it not been for the virus. This is statistical nonsense. One cannot and must not transfer the remaining life expectancy of a person alive at age 80 to a cohort of dead people. Following this methodology, it would be possible to declare any random variable (red socks for example) to be a mortal danger. (11)

Some authors (12) have put forward the hypothesis that the mortality risk due to (or with) corona is equal in its age distribution to, but (largely) additional to the normal mortality risk: so the virus acts like a terrorist who kills 100,000 people with the same age distribution as the mortality table in the general population. If this were true, if this were even possible, we would have had to see a corresponding increase in general mortality across all countries – which we have not. (13) As we are talking of people killed by (or with) a respiratory disease which is mild in the majority of cases, not of people killed by a terrorist, we would furthermore again have to ask the essential question: Why should they have lived significantly longer than the rest of the population, what would have pre-destined this particular cohort (of corona test-positives) to a longer than average lifespan? No, this assertion is not tenable either.

People in the 50-70 age groups also die of (or “with”) Corona? Is it normal to die at age 60 the reader may ask. No, it’s not, of course not, every single case is tragic (and deserves medicine’s full and best attention). But our politicians should know that it inevitably happens sometimes, and that you need to compare and analyse numbers on a population level, instead of being swayed by emotion about individual cases. Specifically in answer to that question, in every population, there are always some 50-70 year olds who unfortunately die – this is inevitable in the human condition. Some of these 50-70 year-olds have always died of (or with) a viral respiratory infection (like the one caused by the Coronavirus). The essential question is whether more people of these age groups die because of the Coronavirus than previously. The answer is no because:

1) We have not observed and are not observing a significant excess mortality in these age groups.

2) The percentage of Corona mortality in these age groups is not only not higher, but effectively lower (!) than the one in the general population.

The conclusion is – the Coronavirus has no influence on the mortality of the 50-70 age groups. And that very conclusion is the same for all groups below 80 years of age. As 80 is the average age of death in the population, the general conclusion therefore is that the Coronavirus has no influence on population mortality.

Science and virology have certainly progressed over the last 16 months, and perhaps humanity will benefit from this in the future. Nevertheless, in 2020 and in 2021, the ‘corona deaths’ would have died, on average (not in every individual case), at roughly the same time. We are not immortal. On average, we die at our average age of death.

Since March 2020, our societies have been treating this normality as if it were a catastrophe. However, no short-term political or social intervention can prevent general population mortality at an average age of currently about 80 years. Nor can it prevent our continuous (especially during the cold season) and immunising confrontation with freshly mutated respiratory viruses. We could have known this, many experts and politicians (perhaps Boris Johnson among them) certainly knew it at the latest on March 12, 2020, when the Italians publicly announced the data on their first 2,003 ‘corona deaths’ (largely from Bergamo and its surroundings): Average age 80.3 years, all (‘with two possible exceptions’) suffering from severe pre-existing conditions. (12)

Incidentally, no vaccination can prevent normal population mortality either, and I suppose many of my former colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry know this. As a pre-requisite for any marketing authorisation – even more so for such hasty and therefore risky ones – the regulatory authorities should have demanded mortality studies (i.e. proof of a lower total number of deaths in the vaccinated group compared with the placebo group).

Such a study would  have been very unlikely to produce a positive result though, as normal human mortality at the general average age of death cannot be prevented.

Instead, the evidence of a reduction in common cold symptoms with a positive test was declared a relevant clinical endpoint and published with great fanfare, (13) and the seasonal decrease in test-positive cases and deaths – which was already observed last summer – is being celebrated as a success of vaccination. German (and other) professional associations claim, against their better judgement, that the vaccines’ pivotal studies have proven that they prevent severe forms and deaths by almost 100 per cent. (14)

However, even if entire populations become vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, people will continue to catch common colds and flu, severe forms will continue to occur in the elderly and immunologically weakened, and a yearly fluctuating number of average 80-year-olds will leave us as always, with the coronavirus or with other mutated respiratory viruses and with their constantly mutating variants.

If the human consequences of the political and societal response to this one respiratory virus were not so horrific, we could almost watch and enjoy the whole thing as a grotesque farce. Perhaps in the not too distant future, a (hopefully still – or again!) free humanity may learn useful lessons from this dystopian episode. In particular, we need to develop a healthily sceptical distrust of a certain type of scientists who spread fear and anxiety with their model-based predictions, and of their political followers.

References:

(1) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/185394/umfrage/entwicklung-der-lebenserwartung-nach-geschlecht/

(2) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1013307/umfrage/sterbefaelle-in-deutschland-nach-alter/

(3) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/156902/umfrage/sterbefaelle-in-deutschland/

(4) Sonderauswertung – Sterbefälle 2016 bis 2021 (Stand: 05.07.2021) (destatis.de)

(5) 2_5251422028526783027_online.pdf (2020news.de)

(6) https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-in-the-us/

(7) https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

(8) https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1104173/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-des-coronavirus-in-deutschland-nach-geschlecht/

(9) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/

(10) https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

(11) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7646031/#eci13423-sec-0005title

(12) https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259)

(13) https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Cross-Section/Corona/Society/population_death.html

(14) https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

(15) Coronavirus, Brusaferro (Iss): età media dei deceduti è 80,3 (today.it)

(16) https://www.dgi-net.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210323_COVID_Impfung_Stellungnahme.pdf

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

UK OFFICIAL ADMITS LOCKDOWNS FOR “SOCIAL CONTROL”

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | July 26, 2021

A U.K. member of Parliament has come forward writing a blistering op-ed for the Daily Mail. Part whistleblower, part human rights activist, Graham Brady is calling out his own government’s ill-advised Covid mitigation policies, originating from fear, rather than sound public health science.

July 31, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

J’accuse! Banned GP’s damning letter to the NHS chief

By Sally Beck | The Conservative Woman | July 29, 2021

WHEN the NHS suspended GP Dr Sam White without pay for daring to question the Covid narrative, they thought he would meekly disappear. Thankfully he didn’t, because the lack of debate from doctors over draconian measures the country has endured unnecessarily has been deafening. Instead, he took legal advice and his solicitor fired off a 23-page letter to the chief executive of the NHS, Sir Simon Stevens.

The colour must have drained from Stevens’s face when he opened it, even more so now as it has been made public and read over a million times. It began: ‘Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the Covid response.’

It was Dr White’s viral resignation video that had angered health service chiefs. He described how he had quit as a partner from his Hampshire general practice because of the harm Covid measures were causing. He was also being prevented from using readily available effective treatments for Covid patients and he could see the toll that isolation was taking on the elderly and vulnerable. He was distraught at the thought that children would be vaccinated for a disease from which they are not at risk, whereas the experimental vaccines could cause them catastrophic damage.

All licensed doctors have a revalidation process conducted every five years either by their employer, their contracted health authority or by their governing body the General Medical Council (GMC). This is to ensure they are fit to practise and to prevent rogue doctors, such as serial killer Harold Shipman, slipping under the radar. Dr White had already passed his revalidation by the GMC without comment in December 2020, where he raised his concerns about masks, not being able to prescribe safe and effective drugs and the inaccurate PCR test. He was reassessed in April after his video made the same points, and passed again. After it went viral, however, clocking up over a million views, he was suspended in June. The NHS had had enough and the same doctor who revalidated him effectively sacked him.

Dr White’s legal letter issued by the pjhlaw legal firm accuses HM Government, the executive board of the NHS, Sage, senior members of the civil service and the executive board of the Medicines Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) of breaching common law (derived from hundreds of years of precedent rather than recent statute) obligations, and the seven Nolan principles governing public life. The most important of these is Selflessness, meaning that decisions should be taken solely in the public interest and not for financial gain. As we have seen nine billionaires created thanks to the pandemic, alongside millions of reports worldwide of death and injury post-vaccination for a disease with a 99.7 per cent recovery rate, I think it’s safe to say they’ve trampled all over Nolan.

One of Dr White’s main complaints is that the public were not given proper informed consent before vaccination. In the pop-up vaccination hubs set up in car parks, churches and cinemas, they were not asked about their medical history. This meant if there were contra-indications to receiving the vaccine, the vaccinator did not know the jab should not be given and the vaccinated had no clue they could suffer a serious, life-changing adverse event.

The letter adds: ‘It should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry . . . It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 (£7) to over $200 (£145) in the space of 18 months.

‘Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna. Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation. The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded [£1million donation] by the Gates Foundation.’

The letter goes on to cover the unreliability of the PCR tests which are being abandoned by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in December; the fact that in most fatalities patients died ‘with’ Covid rather than ‘of’ Covid; the coercive introduction of vaccine passports for travel and work, and the unnecessary use of face masks.

The NHS has offloaded Dr White’s case to the GMC, who say they have had 18 complaints from unnamed doctors offended by his resignation video, but as usual in all cases of doctors subjected to a witch hunt because they questioned the narrative, none is from a patient.

Dr White said: ‘I have received 155 pages of complaints, which is quite distressing and upsetting, and they are just downright untrue. There is one complainant alleging I used the C-word when talking about a patient, which is something I never would have done.’

The professional standards department of NHS England and NHS Improvement are struggling to find concrete evidence for his alleged misdemeanours. About the only one they can prove is that he did not wear a face mask when walking around his GP surgery (although he wore one to consult with patients) and did not advise his elderly patients to wear them because they found them distressing. Departing from NHS directives is considered unacceptable and to them, raises serious concerns regarding Dr White’s fitness to practise. Forget the fact that it’s been reported widely that face masks can do more harm than good and are nothing more than theatre.

Incidentally, coming back to Dr Harold Shipman, who murdered more than 250 patients, he was not suspended without pay. Shipman, who was arrested in 1998, kept his c£70,000 salary from West Pennine health authority even after he was convicted and jailed for killing 15 patients. He didn’t lose it until two years after his arrest, when the GMC finally struck him off. By then, his family had received more than £100,000. In contrast, the NHS has now decided, on appeal, that Dr White can receive 90 per cent of one month’s earnings from his locum work until after the GMC decide his fate.

Dr White, who is now practising functional medicine, said: ‘Complete uncertainty about my financial future is really worrying.’ He has effectively been reduced to begging for money to live on and to fight his court case against Stevens et al. Two crowd-funders are out there which he hopes will help him do both until he gets back on his feet.

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/dr-sams-subsistence-funds

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/take-back-control/

July 30, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

The real pandemic is everyone doing as they are told

By Michael Driver | The Conservative Woman | July 29, 2021

If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.

– Henry David Thoreau

WE LIVE in the age of the oxymoron. Diversity means everyone thinks the same. Tolerance means the vicious exclusion of anyone who doesn’t. Levelling up is literally exacerbating inequality to medieval levels. Freedom passports means you require papers to watch football. Vaccines don’t prevent the infection or transmission of disease. Democracy is the imposition of new laws and policies no one voted for. Journalism is propaganda. Modern Monetary Theory means effect before cause, the ‘wet pavements cause rain’ branch of economics. Education is the process of removing information rather than importing it. That you don’t think but repeat is more important than that you learn and grow. Asymptomatic transmission means the healthy can infect the immunised. Sociopaths are philanthropists. Virtue signalling is camouflage for a collapse in morality. The green new deal is neither green, new or a deal. Environmentalists means a collection of the world’s most polluting corporations. Climate change policies are any act which preserves the most extreme forms of exploitation. War is peace, freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Owning nothing is happiness, as Orwell might have added if he were around today. Probably on social media (another oxymoron, they’re hard to escape).

A parlour game for this age of absurdity is to see how many of these logical inversions you can think of. Now I want to head in a different direction and consider two questions: What is the effect of collective cognitive dissonance? Where will it lead us?

I believe the effect of collective cognitive dissonance is the mass abdication of responsibility to authority. When something becomes impossible to understand or reconcile, the natural human instinct is to rely on authority figures – to herd. When people feel intense insecurity they abdicate freedom for perceived safety.

According to psychologist Erich Fromm (1900-1980): ‘Most people are not even aware of their need to conform. They live under the illusion that they follow their own ideas and inclinations, that they are individualists, that they have arrived at their opinions as the result of their own thinking – and that it just happens that their ideas are the same as those of the majority.’

Fromm described the concept of automaton conformity as ‘changing one’s ideal self to conform to a perception of society’s preferred type of personality, losing one’s true self in the process’. Fromm described the desire to subsume the self into the herd.

The human species now sounds like a herd of animals with the relentless repetition of alliterative phraseology: for build back better I hear moo moo moo, new normal baa baaa etc. A cacophony of mindless agreement is expressed as poetic assonance: ‘double jabbed’, we yabber at each other like a flock of jabbering birds. Another parlour game for the next lockdown is to list all the new terms and phrases which sound like advertising slogans or neuro-linguistic programming. Why the repetition? Why the repetition?

The real pandemic is everyone thinking the same, a culture so mono it feels as if ISIS won. So why is this conformity reckless?

The width of the edge is what really matters in society. Too wide and we have anarchism, too narrow totalitarianism. Mass conformity is the mechanism of totalitarianism, it is the most reckless act. Progress is always ground up, never top down. All the good stuff happens at the edge. Great art is never produced by corporations. Scientific discoveries take place in patent offices, medical breakthroughs in dirty Petri dishes, great music is made by the unemployed, entrepreneurs succeed via repeated failure. Mandela didn’t change the world from Davos. The moment the pressure on de Klerk forced him to widen the edge, the idea of freedom nursed by Mandela blossomed like a giant protea. The campaigners for women’s suffrage were on the edge of society. Nothing changes from the middle. A third game might be to look around you and list everything born of the maverick. Start with the device you’re most likely reading this article on and work your way out.

Returning to the Thoreau quote at the top of this piece: mavericks need space to dance to a different tune. The edge needs to be just wide enough. ‘And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music,’ as Nietzsche might have said. Reckless conformists hear only one note, mavericks the whole range. Think of us as the control group.

July 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

California Governor Gavin Newsom Has a New Coronavirus Crackdown Hypocrisy Scandal

By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | July 28, 2021

California Governor Gavin Newsom, over the last year and a half, has been one of the American governors imposing the most extensive crackdowns on freedom in the name of countering coronavirus. He also famously exhibited extreme hypocrisy in November by flagrantly violating his own California coronavirus-related mandates while taking part in a dinner party at the uber-expensive French Laundry restaurant. Newsom’s attitude seems to be that his rules are for regular people, not for himself and his friends.

Now comes word of another scandal in which Newsom has flaunted the mandate he has imposed in the state. Eric Ting reported Tuesday at the San Francisco Gate that two of Newsom’s children recently attended a basketball summer camp that had informed parents ahead of time that children would not be required to wear masks despite a state mandate that children ages two to 11 do so. After a picture of one of Newsom’s children, along with other children at the camp, with uncovered faces appeared on the internet, Newsom’s kids were pulled out of the camp early. Woops, the Newsom family had missed reading the camp’s email mentioning the camp’s mask policy, explained the communications director of Newsom’s governor office.

It is great that Newsom and his friends can enjoy an “old normal” dinner party with friends, though the dinner party at issue looks like it was also a get-together of government and special interest lobbyists. And it is great that Newsom’s children, who are in an age group for which risk of serious injury or death from coronavirus is nearly zero, can participate in a summer camp without wearing uncomfortable, dehumanizing masks that are known to cause health problems but have not been shown to provide any net protection from coronavirus. It would also be great if more summer camps followed freedom-friendly policies as did the camp Newsom’s children attended. Kudos for people taking part in such forbidden activities that bring joy to life. The problem with Newsom is that he takes these actions for himself and his children while, at the same time, he decrees that ordinary people are prohibited from doing so.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

July 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Was Lockdown Illegal?

By Noah Carl • The Daily Sceptic • July 27, 2021

There has been much debate among lawyers as to whether the various “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (i.e., lockdown measures) that have been imposed over the past year and a half are actually legal.

In April of 2020, the barrister Francis Hoar wrote an article laying out the case for the illegality of Britain’s lockdown. While his piece is very much worth reading in full, I will do my best to summarise the main points here.

Hoar argues that lockdown measures were a “disproportionate interference with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights”, and were therefore in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

To make his case, he appeals to the so-called Siracusa Principles, which were adopted by the UN Economic and Social Council in 1984. These principles stipulate that government responses to national emergencies that involve the restriction of human rights must fulfil certain criteria.

Specifically, they must be: carried out in accordance with law; directed toward an objective of general interest; strictly necessary to achieve that objective; the least intrusive way of achieving that objective; based on scientific evidence, and neither arbitrary nor discriminatory; of limited duration, respectful of human dignity and subject to review.

Hoar argues convincingly that lockdown measures failed to meet several of these criteria. For example, lockdowns were not strictly necessary, since the same outcomes could plausibly have been achieved with far less intrusive measures (i.e., a focused protection strategy).

And it’s highly doubtful that lockdowns were “respectful of human dignity and subject to review”, given that they initially proscribed all political gatherings and public demonstrations without exception – a measure unprecedented in British history.

Hoar suggests that, “were they challenged by judicial review”, the measures should be “disapplied if necessary”. (Recall that he was writing back in April of last year). Incidentally, a longer and more detailed version of his article is available here.

Another figure from the legal community to argue for the illegality of the UK’s lockdowns is Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court Justice. In a lecture delivered to the Cambridge Law Faculty in October 2020, he claimed that lockdown measures were without legal basis, and described the U.K.’s response as “a monument of collective hysteria and government folly”.

As readers may be aware, there was in fact a major legal challenge to the U.K.’s lockdowns, brought by the entrepreneur Simon Dolan (and funded to the tune of £427,000). The challenge sought a judicial review of the lockdown measures. Unfortunately, it proved unsuccessful.

I’ve been told by people with legal expertise that mounting another challenge would be difficult, given the adverse judgement in the case brought by Dolan. It’s therefore unlikely the Government will be liable for claims from individuals and businesses who’ve suffered due to lockdown.

Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that legal bodies in each of the following countries have found at least some aspect of the lockdown policy illegal: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Spain, Finland, Czechia, Scotland, Slovakia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.

So while the High Court in London did reject Dolan’s case against the Government, lockdown opponents have won important victories in a number of countries.

And given that the evidence against lockdown has only increased since the judgement in Dolan’s case, lockdown opponents will have plenty of ammunition if any future Government decides to lock down in response to a similar virus.

July 28, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Who Watches The Watchmen? – Fauci’s “Noble Lie” Exposed

By Charles Rixey, MA, MBA | Prometheus Shrugged | July 22, 2021

More than 100K pages of FOIA documents referenced here have been condensed into 173 pages of the most relevant selections in my appendix Prometheus Shrugged. It was here, last February, that the role of Dr. Fauci in ongoing academic censorship of COVID’s origin was first exposed.

A chronological narrative of the events described throughout my research will included in a forthcoming volume of DRASTIC’s set of published collections of evidence.

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote that truth goes through 3 stages:

1st, it is ridiculed; 2nd, it is violently opposed; and 3rd, it is accepted as being self-evident

Guess what’s next for us?

Six months ago, I began my first article on scientific censorship during COVID-19 by introducing Dr. Fauci as a surprise character that had emerged unexpectedly while digging through what was then 83,000 FOIA emails, published by US Right-to-Know over the course of the last year:

[see files related to Ralph Baric, Linda Saif, Rita Colwell, Colorado State/Rocky Mountain National Laboratory & the NCBI; other FOIA releases from Judicial Watch, Buzzfeed & the Washington Post include NIH funding of the WIV & Dr. Fauci’s emails]

I’ve been trying for quite some time to get people to understand the full scope of the Dr. Fauci ‘situation,’ but it’s clear that segments of our national leadership are preventing an honest and open inquiry into his actions because they fear the backlash/collateral damage that will result from the tarnishing of their sacred cow. It’s time Americans were told the truth – that the grant money sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV] is merely a footnote in this narrative.

After all, Dr. Fauci controls nearly $4 billion of annual grant funding for the NIAID, the institute within the NIH he has directed since 1984; over 37 years, more than 50,000 research projects have been supported with more than $50 billion [conservatively] of taxpayer funds have been doled out to them.

It’s reasonable to hold him accountable for the results of his organization’s efforts, but the direct funding received by the WIV for Gain-of-Function (GOF) research represents only a tiny fraction of Fauci’s involvement in enabling risky research – the 2017 repeal of the GOF ban was decided without the consultation of the Trump administration, even though news coverage during the pandemic blamed him for the decision.

Neither Fauci nor his boss Francis Collins [the NIH director] bothered to clarify the record, which looks especially disgusting in the wake of persistent rejections of Senator Rand Paul’s assertions [with accompanying evidence] that the NIH ever financially supported such research:

Contents:

  • Dr. Fauci’s true legacy
  • The evidence of his involvement
  • The questions Congress [and everyone else] should be asking Dr. Fauci
  • The impact of his efforts

First, do no harm … to Fauci’s Legacy

It’s important to plainly state that I’m aware of the intense politicization of virtually every aspect of the pandemic and the pandemic response. Since many readers may not be aware, I’ll point out that my specific motivation for building a COVID-19 website and speaking to a broader audience about the various facets of the pandemic was to offer unfiltered information to counter the disgusting polarization I observed:

I felt obligated to re-iterate my stance, but the nature and importance of the situation can’t be ignored any longer, because Congress is now actively engaged in investigating the pandemic’s origins, and we must confront the truth if we are to gain meaningful insight that can help us prepare for future crises. There is no level of partisanship that justifies ignoring a tragedy of this magnitude.

“Everything rises and falls on leadership” – John Maxwell

It’s hard to place a dollar value on the impact of Fauci’s leadership decisions upon almost all aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why it’s not difficult to understand the willingness of some to avoid a legitimate inquiry into the issue altogether. After all, he sits at the nexus of –

A) the NIH’s role in supporting the research & development of mRNA technology and new antiviral drugs like Remdesivir, and the resulting conflicts of interest that the NIH continues to ignore

B) His role in pushing those NIH-sponsored inventions; specifically, advocating for Remdesivir on the basis of weak evidence while rejecting legitimate investigations into generic alternatives with no less statistical support, as well as…

C) … His role in obfuscating concerning data and censoring public debate over the risk/benefit evidence emerging about COVID-19 vaccines. Had Fauci been bluntly honest about the unknowns involving the new technology throughout the pandemic, Americans would still largely have assumed the risk – at least, assuming that antibody dependent enhancement [ADE] was not a likely outcome. Oops.

D) His evolving stances on masking, lockdowns, school closures and other non-pharmaceutical interventions [NPI], largely the result of growing public awareness that those decisions have consistently been based upon reducing the accountability of cowardly officials, not the best interest of their constituents [Note: this is a conclusion from my research focus last year, that I will return to once the origin issue allows me to do so].

E) His refusal to address the blatant censorship of vaccine side-effect data; it takes a disturbing level of cynicism to witness the large-scale skepticism and uncertainty that has resulted from such censorship and then vilify those willing to speak up – and blaming them for any future vaccine breakout when one of the most likely causes would be ADE. ADE with SARS-CoV-2 would most likely result from the specific targeting of the MRNA vaccines, not vaccine hesitancy [in the absence of a simultaneous global administration of the jabs – which was never feasible under the geopolitical and temporal constraints of the pandemic.

Each of those factors has contributed to the fading perception of Fauci as ‘America’s Doctor, but each has also become a divisive litmus test for which the evidence for and against is hotly debated. My purpose here is not to offer judgment on those issues; rather, I want to highlight the fact that Dr. Fauci’s legacy includes elements far beyond the scope of my research – and the context of those debates is directly relevant for the proper framing of the failures illuminated here. The same hubris and gaslighting in defense of ‘Science’ has plagued everything.

My disgust doesn’t stem from casual reflection & an exaggeration of weak assertions to fan partisan flames. It stems from my analysis of 100K pages of FOIA documents, 1,000+ research articles reviewed, and my own published analysis of the the impact of Fauci’s censorship, which was the 1st of its kind.

My approach was external to science – from the perspective of an historian seeking to understand the ‘why’ behind the further collapse of trust in our institutions during the pandemic. My conclusions were formed over six months of investigation, and focused on the realization that one of the worst developments of the pandemic is the evaporation of public trust in scientists [see Edifice Wrecks].

I’ve never sought to inflame conspiracies or ignore evidence in support of zoonosis, but I’ve personally entered into discussions with a half-dozen of the scientists highlighted below, and none of them ever addressed the emerging evidence that, under normal circumstances, would’ve been part of the open debate that Fauci pretends already took place.

Every additional moment spent in denial and suppression just adds fuel to the coming backlash, and thus far discussions have ignored what I believe is the largest and most consequential elephant in the room:

F) Fauci quietly but directly ensured that scientific censorship was implemented, in large measure, to prevent public awareness of the extent of his role in GOF research and the controversies surrounding it. The evidence proves that, at the start of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci and many leading scientists moved to protect themselves – not us, who weren’t yet aware of the potential calamity at our doorstep.

Fauci LED the efforts to obstruct research into COVID’s origins, colluding with the President’s Science Advisor Kelvin Dreogemeier and Wellcome Trust head Jeremy Farrar, to proactively undermine consideration of the evidence that directly tied their global research initiatives to the lab at the center of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To date, all of their efforts have been focused on preventing disclosure of embarrassing connections – not preventing another novel pathogen from sparking a global pandemic; to prevent future scrutiny, not future tragedy.

Scientists, if you’re struggling to understand the distinction between degrees of commitment to truth, I offer the example of Thích Quảng Đức, pictured here protesting the corrupt S. Vietnam regime in a prologue of the Vietnam War:

You see, the message for scientists who believe that a threat is existential is that words gain true meaning when they are supported by the actions & sacrifices of the speaker. What message are we supposed to derive from the COVID-19 pandemic?

I’d recommend pausing for reflection – on the image above, specifically – because what the world is beginning to see is that the scientific establishment made a mockery of the trust it had been given. The world’s leading experts in virology and public health called attention to a threat by setting the world on fire, rather than themselves – and then blaming us for being too simple to believe their noble lie.

Priorities

The baseline assumption of the public at large has been that Dr. Fauci has earned the benefit of the doubt thanks to his five decades of public service and consistency in defending establishment science – the admiration of which has risen nearly to cult worship in recent decades. The cognitive dissonance between appearance and reality have created a situation where trust in ‘science’ has reached its sacred peak at the exact moment when such trust is least deserved.

At the center of this incestuous arrogance is Dr. Anthony Fauci, the recipient of unquestioned adulation by those in the political sphere who have spent more than a century arguing that a Platonic ‘philosopher-king’ ideal must be forced upon intellectually vacuous masses whom, left to their own devices, would inevitably self-immolate.

Scientists reached new heights in the ivory tower when they warned us that man’s evil nature had left previous generations protected only by the horrific death equation of Mutually Assured Destruction. Setting aside the obvious complicity of scientists in the creation of nuclear weapons, trusting science over many decades has simply led to a new formulation of that Faustian bargain – Mutually Assured Corruption.

A Study In Scarlet

Before heading down the long and winding road, it’s important to explain what zoonosis is and why Fauci’s denial of basic facts simply kicks the accountability can down the road. Should we really be surprised that Dr. Fauci is ‘confused’ by the definition of “Gain if Function?” After all, not that long ago, he also ridiculed the idea that the virus could’ve come from a lab before finally admitting that it was a statistical possibility.

Zoonosis in the context of viral emergence doesn’t mean a virus originally sprung from nature – all viruses do. It means that the jump from animals to humans happened in the wild, as the result of a fortuitous combination of mutations that allow a virus to survive the switch. If human intervention artificially encouraged the process of adaptation by experimentation, or simply by virtue of bringing a virus to a lab and increasing the odds of such exposure, then the origin of a viral pandemic is a lab.

What’s sickening about his tortured twisting of language is that Fauci knows this better than almost anyone; thus his lies aren’t borne of ignorance. What he’s done is use his scientific gravitas to pretend that observers’ understanding of literal definitions is flawed because we are too ignorant to appreciate the complexity of the issues. The truth, however, is that our generation’s most prominent infectious disease expert is gaslighting the citizens of the country he swore an oath to protect [one could also use the term epistemic injustice ].

July 28, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »