Most Americans believe COVID came from Wuhan Lab; a quarter believe it was ‘released on purpose’
Only 13% are still buying that ‘it came naturally from bats’
By Steve Watson | Summit News | June 4, 2021
Most Americans believe that the coronavirus pandemic originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with almost a quarter saying they believe it was released on purpose, according to a YouGov poll.
A total of 58% of Americans agree that its is ‘definitely or probably true’ that the virus came out of the Wuhan lab.
The number represents a nine percent increase on findings from a year ago.
Even 43% of Democrats believe the virus came out of the lab.
Only 13% are still buying the ‘it mutated naturally from bats’ claim.
Indeed, YouGov notes “When it comes to the more specific circumstances of the virus’ emergence, 24% think it was created in a laboratory and was released on purpose, 18% think it was lab-created and escaped by accident, while a further 12% think it was a naturally occurring disease that was being examined in a laboratory but was released by accident.”
This is despite a massive co-ordinated attempt by the establishment media and big-tech to censor and dismiss the lab leak idea as a crazy ‘conspiracy theory’.
Why Is There Such Reluctance to Discuss Natural Immunity?
By Jon Sanders | AIER | June 4, 2021
If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.
Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick. Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.
Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price.
Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death.
Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.
Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.
They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:
- People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end
- The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods
- People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason
- People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class
Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.
For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”
Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.“
Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”
While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.
Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.
As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:
The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method? ) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”
Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?
Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?
Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.
Jon Sanders is an economist and the senior fellow of regulatory studies and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.
The real conspirators who lied about Covid’s origin, funded fraudulent trials of therapeutics, and controlled the Covid pandemic are the top public health leaders
By Meryl Nass, MD | June 3, 2021
In very early 2020 there was a lot of chatter about where the virus, later named SARS-CoV-2, actually came from. In an excellent, detailed article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, former NY Times science writer Nicholas Wade describes how two short pieces published in The Lancet and Nature Medicine in Feb-March 2020 determined how this chatter would be channeled.
These two extraordinarily influential pieces, each simply titled as a “Correspondence,” were parroted by the mainstream media for a year. Each was plainly intended to shut down any discussion of a possible lab origin.
I happened to read both Correspondences in March 2020 and it was immediately apparent to me that each was designed as a propaganda tool. Neither had anything to do with science. In fact, the Andersen Correspondence butchered the science. Each had an unusual concatenation of authors.
I was so intrigued by these articles that I kept searching the net to understand them, and discovered that Francis Collins, the NIH Director, had blogged on March 26 about the Nature Medicine Correspondence, suggesting it should put an end to conspiracy theories about lab origin.
I further found the letter from the 3 heads of the US National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, which had been referred to by the Lancet Correspondence authors. But it had not yet been published when the Lancet correspondence was written, suggesting again some hidden connection (or mutual effort) involving the author(s) of the National Academies letter and the Lancet Correspondence author(s).
I wondered why 5 otherwise credible scientists would sign their names to the Nature Medicine Correspondence, when the arguments made in the paper were nonsensical. I concluded that they had been put up to it by a ‘hidden hand,’ and when I was interviewed for the film that became Plandemic 2: Indoctornation I said so. (The film has been banned and shadowbanned, as have many of my writings, so it is impossible to find using google or a standard search engine. Here it is on Bitchute, using the Ecosia search engine.)
Months ago, in another email drop obtained by US Right to Know, we learned that Peter Daszac, CEO of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, was the primary but hidden author of the Lancet Correspondence. He was also the primary beneficiary, since his organization had been used as the pass through to send money from the NIAID to the Wuhan coronavirus lab. (Some might consider this method of giving out grants as a fancy way of money laundering.) Daszac, like Fauci, earned over $400,000/year. He was also a member of the WHO Covid origins investigative team, and had been selected as the head of the Lancet Covid origins investigative team. But the Lancet-sponsored investigation looks like it is now dead in the water. The WHO and the Lancet thus seem to be co-conspirators, choosing the fox (Daszac) to guard the henhouse (the natural origin theory of Covid).
Today, I was sent a link to a specific one of Fauci’s emails, and the mystery of why 5 well known scientists coauthored drivel, which the venerable Nature Medicine journal published, and which was then used as the foundation supporting the claim of Covid’s natural origin, was solved. Here’s the email.
The first author of the Nature Medicine paper thanks 3 incredibly important people for their “advice and leadership” regarding the paper. All 3 are MD researchers, and they dole out more money for medical research than anyone else in the world, perhaps excepting Bill Gates. Fauci runs the NIAID; Collins is the NIH Director (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Sir Jeremy Farrar is the director of the Wellcome Trust. Jeremy also signed the Lancet letter. And he is the Chair of the World Health Organization R&D Blueprint Scientific Advisory Group, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO’s Solidarity trial, in which 1000 unwitting subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine in order to sink the use of the drug for Covid. Jeremy had worked in Vietnam, where there was lots of malaria, and he had also been involved with SARS-1 there. He additionally was central in setting up the UK Recovery trial, where 1600 subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine. I think he had some idea of the proper dose of the chloroquine drugs from his experience in Vietnam. But even if he didn’t, Farrar, Fauci and Collins would have learned about such overdoses after Brazil told the world about how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a trial of chloroquine for Covid, published in the JAMA in mid April 2020. Thirty-nine percent of the subjects in Brazil who were given high doses of chloroquine died, average age 50.
Yet the Solidarity and Recovery hydroxychloroquine trials continued into June, stopping only after their extreme doses were exposed.
Fauci made sure to control the treatment guidelines for Covid that came out of the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also cancelled the first large-scale trial of hydroxychlorquine treatment in early disease, after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects were enrolled.
What does all this mean?
- There was a conspiracy between the five authors of the Nature Medicine paper and the heads of the NIH, NIAID and Wellcome Trust to cover up the lab origin of Covid.
- There was a conspiracy involving Peter Daszac, Tony Fauci and others to push the natural origin theory.
(See other emails in the recent drop.)
- There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other ideas as conspiracy theory. Collin’s blog post is another piece of this story.
- Farrar was intimately involved in both large HCQ overdose trials (in which about 500 subjects total died).
- Farrar, Fauci and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials of the use of chloroquines and ivermectin and other repurposed drugs that might have turned around the pandemic.
- Are the 4 individuals named here intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and improper treatments used during the pandemic?
Below are my two early posts on this subject from March and April 2020, and a snippet from the Lancet Correspondence, with a list of signatories.
I don’t want to take credit improperly. Dan Sirotkin noticed the Nature Medicine article before I did, and wrote lucidly about it. I did not see his writing until much later.
Thursday, March 26, 2020
There are many ways the novel coronavirus may have come about/ Nass
Nature Medicine ran a 3 page article that claimed to explain why the novel coronavirus is not a lab construct. USA Today wrote a summary piece explaining it:
“If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,” the report said. “But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.”—USAT
Yet it turns out to be a specious argument, relying on the fact that the novel coronavirus backbone sequence was not already known in the open virology literature.
- While starting from a known RNA sequence is one easy way to create a pathogen, it is certainly not necessary to do so.
- Nor is it likely that biodefense/biowarfare programs share knowledge of all their creations. They never have before.
- a) Finally, it is relatively easy to detect the human hand when a chimera of known virulence factors is strung together.
- b) But because plausible deniability is a critical component of a bioweapons attack, I doubt that a chimera using known sequences is the path that would have been followed by a modern biowarrior.
I will briefly mention some of the old techniques for creating bioweapons, none of which require that a known, published RNA backbone would be required to build a novel, virulent coronavirus:
- China has unique bats. So do other countries. Unique bats likely harbor unique viruses. Bits of these viruses can be strung together, while no outside parties are aware that these particular RNA threads exist in nature.
- You take an already virulent RNA virus, subject it to high rates of mutation via chemical or radiological exposure, and test the viruses that survive for the acquisition of new virulence characteristics.
- You simply passage the virus through tens, hundreds or thousands of lab animals or cell cultures and test the results for acquisition of new virulence characteristics.
- You mix different viruses together with different virulence characteristics, allow them to grow together, and seek recombinants that have obtained the desired new mix of virulence factors.
All these possibilities result in viruses that are hard to pin on lab production. I dare the Nature Medicine scientists to dismiss these scenarios.
Still, I doubt that any national program would deliberately release this coronavirus onto the people of the earth, because it is so hard to control.
Historically, bio-weaponeers have required their creations to be controlled at all costs. In one well-documented example of biowarfare, unleashing African swine fever on a Caribbean island was associated with no spread beyond the island. In another, anthrax spores were used because they stay put– their use did not cause anthrax cases beyond the borders of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).
So why do we have a coronavirus epidemic now?
An accidental biowarfare laboratory release is the best current hypothesis, in my opinion. Such accidental releases have been documented for many decades, throughout the world. But I could certainly be wrong.
Update April 29: Newsweek has been delving into “gain of function” (which means increasing the virulence of a pathogen) coronavirus research in Wuhan, China which might have contributed to the formation of SARS-CoV-2… and the interesting fact (which I posted about here) that the US government provided financial support for this research. Newsweek’s pieces were posted April 27, and 29. My other pieces questioning the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are here and here.
Thursday, April 2, 2020
Why are some of the US’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2?
- I know about biological warfare/biodefense. I am the first person in the world (according to publicly available literature) to have analyzed an epidemic and demonstrated that the epidemic was due to biological warfare. (1992 study of the 1978-1980 Rhodesian anthrax outbreak, published in Medicine and Global Survival, aka Physicians for Social Responsibility Quarterly (name changed), hosted by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War).
https://www.ippnw.org/pdf/mgs/psr-2-4-nass.pdf
- Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed. Such methods were used by the Japanese beginning in the 1930s, by the US beginning in the 1940s, and by a number of other countries. They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used. Such methods were also used subsequent to the 1970s.
- These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences. In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:
- a) exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
- b) passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
- c) mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors
- Top scientists circled their wagons to protest against “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,”in a statement published in the LancetMarch 7. (It was published earlier online.) Their reported aim was to “stand with” public health professionals and scientists in China. Many who signed the statement have worked in biodefense. Signers include Rita Colwell, former director of the National Science Foundation, and James Hughes, former director of CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases and former assistant Surgeon General.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
Science magazine wrote an article in support of these scientists, which included the following:
The authors of The Lancet statement note that scientists from several countries who have studied SARS-CoV-2 “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” just like many other viruses that have recently emerged in humans. “Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus,” the statement says.
Five additional scientists soon provided the “scientific evidence” to back up the natural origin claim. These 5 scientists have been affiliated with signers of the statement above, they too have worked in biodefense, and their article was published in Nature Medicine (in the print version) on March 17, 2020.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
These scientists set up a straw man to knock down: they claimed that had the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 is the official name of the virus) been created in a lab: “if genetic manipulation had been performed,” then a known coronavirus backbone would have been used. But because no known backbone forms part of SARS-CoV-2, “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.”
As USA Today summarized this:
“If someone were seeking to engineer a new coronavirus as a pathogen, they would have constructed it from the backbone of a virus known to cause illness,” the report said. “But the scientists found that the SARS-CoV-2 backbone differed substantially from those of already known coronaviruses and mostly resembled related viruses found in bats and pangolins.”
Their work was then discussed by Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH.
https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/03/26/genomic-research-points-to-natural-origin-of-covid-19/
Dr. Collins says,
“Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally…
this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19…
Finally, next time you come across something about COVID-19 online that disturbs or puzzles you, I suggest going to FEMA’s new Coronavirus Rumor Control web site…”
I know that the groups of scientists who wrote these pieces in the Lancet and Nature Medicine, as well as NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, know that you don’t need genetic engineering methods to create a bioweapon. Like me, they are old, they recall a world before genetic engineering, they know the history of biowarfare, and they know the score. Why then are they participating in this charade?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19
published online February 19, 2020
CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 395, ISSUE 10226, E42-E43, MARCH 07, 2020
- Charles Calisher
- Dennis Carroll
- Rita Colwell
- Ronald B Corley
- Peter Daszak
- Christian Drosten
- Luis Enjuanes
- Jeremy Farrar
- Hume Field
- Josie Golding
- Alexander Gorbalenya
- Bart Haagmans
- James M Hughes
- William B Karesh
- Gerald T Keusch
- Sai Kit Lam
- Juan Lubroth
- John S Mackenzie
- Larry Madoff
- Jonna Mazet
- Peter Palese
- Stanley Perlman
- Leo Poon
- Bernard Roizman
- Linda Saif
- Kanta Subbarao
- Mike Turner
… The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),
and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
as have so many other emerging pathogens.
,
This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.
Top British scientists linked to Covid lab ‘cover-up’
By Neville Hodgkinson | The Conservative Woman | June 4, 2021
Two of the scientists leading Britain’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic have been implicated in an alleged cover-up of the virus’s origins.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, and Sir Patrick Vallance, formerly president of research and development at the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and chief scientific adviser to the Government since March 2018, both feature in the ‘Fauci files’, an explosive batch of emails released this week under freedom-of-information legislation in America.
The Wellcome Trust is an immensely wealthy foundation which distributes £1billion annually for global health research. It was formed in 1936 after the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, who founded the company that went on to become GlaxoSmithKline. Farrar also has a position on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) and is on the board of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which gave $1billion to Covid-19 vaccine development.
Vallance, who chairs the Government’s expert advisory panel on vaccines, was revealed by the Telegraph last year to have a £600,000 shareholding in GSK, prompting claims of a conflict of interest. He had already cashed in more than £5million worth of shares he received from the company during his tenure there.
Dr Anthony Fauci has for the past 40 years led the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and has been the most public face of the US handling of the crisis.
Despite clashes with President Trump, he is a hero to many, and the emails are being interpreted by some of his supporters in the media as evidence of the huge pressures he faced.
But Tucker Carlson, a Fox News television host and political commentator who has called for a criminal investigation of Fauci’s behaviour, says the emails show that from the beginning, Fauci was worried the public might conclude Covid had originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
‘Why would Tony Fauci be so concerned that Americans would conclude that? Possibly because Tony Fauci knew perfectly well that he had funded gain-of-function experiments at that very same laboratory. The emails prove that Fauci lied about this under oath.’
The first email Carlson showed viewers was dated January 31, 2020 – the day the World Health Organisation declared that Covid represented a global health emergency.
It was sent to Fauci late that evening by immunologist Kristian Anderson, of the Scripps Research Institute in California, considered the most influential in the world for its role in scientific advances. It was copied to only one other person – Jeremy Farrar.
Anderson warned that the virus had features which might make it look as if it could have come from a laboratory (as the British vaccines expert Angus Dalgliesh has been trying to tell us for more than a year).
His email said: ‘The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (less than 0.1 per cent) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.’
The next day, Fauci wrote back: ‘Thanks, Kristian. Talk soon on the call.’
He then sent an urgent email to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, marked IMPORTANT. It read: ‘Hugh – it is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on . . . Read this paper as well as the email that I will forward to you now. You will have tasks today that must be done.’ The paper was described in the email as: ‘Baric, Shi et al – Nature Medicine – SARS gain of function’.
The article concerned, published in November 2015, was written by Ralph Baric, an immunologist based in the US, and long-term recipient of funds from Fauci’s institute.
It acknowledged Zhengli-Li Shi, of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as having provided genetic sequences from Chinese bats which were used to construct a chimera virus – a genetically engineered, laboratory creation which the researchers then showed capable of infecting and damaging human tissue.
The paper concluded: ‘On the basis of these findings, scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue . . . Together, these data and restrictions represent a crossroads of GOF (gain of function) research concerns: the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens.’
Carlson commented: ‘We do know that starting early last year, a lot of people at the National Institutes of Health were worried that Covid had not occurred naturally. They were concerned that it had instead been manipulated in a laboratory in China. And yet they seemed determined to hide those facts from the public. Why?
‘On the afternoon of February 1 last year, Fauci held a conference call with several top virologists. Most of the details of that call remain hidden from public view – they have been redacted. We know the call was related to a document entitled “Coronavirus sequence comparison”.
‘Jeremy Farrar, a British physician who runs a major research non-profit, reminded everyone on the call that what they said was top secret.’
An email about the teleconference was sent by Farrar that same afternoon to Fauci and Patrick Vallance, with cc to six others including Paul Schreier, chief operating officer at Wellcome; German virologist Christian Drosten; Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans, and Kristian Anderson.
It carried the warning: ‘Information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.’
In other emails Farrar, who has publicly promoted the theory that the virus evolved naturally, passed on an article from the website ZeroHedge suggesting the virus might have been created as a bioweapon.
Carlson commented: ‘We now know that is a more plausible explanation than the one we believed at first and were told by the media, which is that the coronavirus came from a pangolin. And yet for the crime of saying that out loud, ZeroHedge was banned from social media platforms. Until recently you were not allowed to suggest that Covid might be man-made. Why couldn’t you suggest that? The factcheckers wouldn’t allow it. Why wouldn’t they? Because Tony Fauci assured the tech monopolies that the coronavirus could not have been man-made. And so the tech monopolies shut down the topic.’
Carlson then replayed a clip from a White House press conference dated April 17, 2020 in which Fauci declared: ‘A group of highly qualified evolutionary biologists looked at the sequences there, and the sequences in bats as they evolve, and the mutation that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.’
Two days later, British scientist Peter Daszak, one of those whom Fauci had funded to conduct the experiments in Wuhan, wrote to thank him for his help in ‘stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for Covid-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology’.
Daszak, president of the EcoHealth alliance, which has received tens of millions of US taxpayers’ dollars for investigating coronaviruses, is a leading member of a World Health Organisation team whose investigation of the pandemic’s origins was widely regarded as a whitewash when published on March 30. He heads a Lancet committee with the same remit.
British intelligence is now said to be working alongside American counterparts, after President Biden last week ordered an investigation into the lab leak theory, with results to be reported back to him within 90 days.
Will we at last hear a glimmer of truth in all this? Or will the British public as well as nations globally continue to be misled by scientists too embarrassed to own up to their part in the Covid fiasco?
You can see the Tucker Carlson broadcast here.
Twitter suspends vaccine skeptic group after it obtained another 3,000 pages of Fauci emails in FOIA request
RT | June 4, 2021
A vaccine skeptics group was temporarily locked out of its Twitter account after claiming that it acquired thousands of new emails from White House Covid-19 adviser Anthony Fauci, with the site labeling the post “disinformation.”
The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) took to Twitter on Thursday to announce the upcoming release of 3,000 pages of Fauci emails it said it obtained in a Freedom of Information request, after media outlets published a massive trove of the health adviser’s correspondence earlier this week.
“The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) is dropping 3,000 new pages of FOIA’d Fauci emails TODAY, providing further insight into Anthony Fauci’s actions on Covid, vaccine safety and more,” the group said in the now-deleted post, which was preserved in a screenshot shared by conservative activist Michelle Malkin.
The screencap shows that Twitter deleted the post for breaking its policy on “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19,” though the platform did not specify what aspect of the tweet was false or deceptive.
While Twitter’s Covid-19 disinformation policy states that it will remove content that makes “a claim of fact, expressed in definitive terms” that is “demonstrably false or misleading,” the ICAN post does not appear to meet that standard, making no factual assertions beyond claiming to have the emails. Twitter, which did not respond to RT’s request for comment, has given no indication about whether it contacted ICAN to determine if it really possessed the emails as claimed.
Asked about the authenticity of the alleged 3,000 pages of messages by a Twitter user on Thursday evening, ICAN creative director Patrick Layton said the emails were “requested and produced through the Freedom of Information Act,” and that ICAN’s “legal team is compiling them” for release. Neither Layton nor ICAN itself has revealed any other details about the purported new trove, which remained unpublished at the time of writing.
On its website, ICAN says its main goal is to disseminate “scientifically researched health information” to the public to allow them to make their own informed medical decisions. However, the group has also come under fire for spreading disinformation [sic] on vaccines, identified as a “key anti-vaxxer organization” in a recent report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Obtained by Buzzfeed and the Washington Post, the previous Fauci email dump was published on Tuesday, prompting criticism of the Covid-19 czar from Republican lawmakers, some demanding his firing.
On Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said one email exchange suggested Fauci may have lied when he claimed his agency – the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases – never funded controversial ‘gain-of-function’ research at a lab in Wuhan, China – the city where Covid-19 was first detected.
In the emails in question, Fauci asked his top deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, to review a 2015 study that discussed gain-of-function work at the Wuhan lab. Auchincloss later replied that the study was conducted prior to a US government ban on funding for gain-of-function research, and that another staffer would “determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.” It is unclear whether the deputy ever followed up after that message.
“The emails paint a disturbing picture, a disturbing picture of Dr. Fauci, from the very beginning, worrying that he had been funding gain-of-function research,” Paul said in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “He knows it to this day, but hasn’t admitted it.”
Gain-of-function work aims to increase the virulence and lethality of viruses so that scientists can better understand them, but has been deemed risky by some experts, who say the suped-up pathogens could accidentally escape into the world.
Later on Thursday, GOP representatives Steve Scalise (Louisiana) and James Comer (Kentucky) also penned a letter to two Democratic committee heads demanding that Fauci be called to testify before Congress about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, saying the emails make the request “even more urgent.”
Response to Fauci emails proves everything is fake, narrative management trumps reality, and those in power want it so
By Nebojsa Malic | RT | June 3, 2021
Watching the media coverage – or lack thereof – of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails and what they mean for the origin of the coronavirus, one is struck by how relentlessly fake everything is, from public health experts to science.
One of the things the emails suggest is that Fauci colluded with Peter Daszak – head of the EcoHealth Alliance, which channeled US research funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology – to suppress and dismiss any notion that the virus causing Covid-19 may not have evolved naturally.
Thing is, Daszak actually went around giving interviews about his work in China throughout last year, and nobody in the media thought to connect the dots. Simply put, Donald Trump said the virus came from China and might have come from a lab, therefore that had to be wrong and racist, end of story, case closed.
That’s just one, most recent and most acute example of Narrative trumping reality at all cost. Millions of deaths, widespread destruction of the economy, tectonic changes in society itself? Small price to pay for “progress” and ensuring the “correct” outcome of the 2020 election, the fortifiers of Our Democracy might say, without anyone batting an eye. “Build back better!” the press parrots instead.
Trump disagreeing with CNN is a mortal threat to democracy and free speech, but Biden telling a reporter he’d rather run her over with an electric truck than answer a question about the war currently going on in Israel is a funny joke, haha, how hilarious. What flavor of ice cream did you order, sir?
This may seem partisan at first blush, but let’s remember this is the same media that once proudly carried water for the narrative about “Saddam’s WMDs.” So the old Democrat-vs-Republican dichotomy doesn’t really work here, and misses the bigger picture to boot.
A truly free society would have no official narratives, Australian columnist Caitlin Johnstone wrote earlier this week. Thing is, modern societies are not free, and official narratives are all they really have. Where would Joe Biden’s legitimacy be without the January 6 Capitol “insurrection” narrative?
American founders codified the First Amendment because they regarded a free press necessary for a free republic. Yet the corporate media complex and their Big Tech counterparts have become a lapdog, not a watchdog, of power. Even the agencies, once thought neutral and objective, are in on it. AP literally rewrote its stylebook to limit the use of “riot” last summer. Reuters “fact-checked” Biden’s eulogy for Robert Byrd as false because the Democrat senator wasn’t a “grand wizard” of the KKK but merely an “exalted cyclops.”
What this Orwellian replacement of facts with narratives does is condition the public to echo Hillary Clinton’s infamous Benghazi defense: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
“Facts” mean nothing to this crowd. “Science” isn’t a rigorous process of finding the truth, but a word-totem invoked to grant authority and banish dissent. “Truth” is whatever they declare it is at the moment, and when it stops being convenient they’ll shamelessly go back and rewrite their own words, pretending all along that that’s what they’ve always believed. Yes, it’s literally Orwellian behavior, but they don’t seem to care.
After all, what are you going to do, change the channel? Actually, that’s happening. Month after month, ratings reports show CNN and MSNBC getting their clock cleaned by Fox News – and Tucker Carlson in particular. The response is to triple down on wokeness and Democrat talking points, while waging a veritable jihad against Fox for “misinformation.”
To think that the media will come to their senses when the reality of ratings hits them in the face, therefore, is foolish. They simply don’t give a damn. Could it be that they don’t care for money as much as they care about power? And not just proximity to political power, but the power to shape and control reality itself, to remake society according to their utopian ideas. Even assuming those ideas are good – and that’s debatable at best – having that sort of power corrupts absolutely, to borrow the expression from Lord Acton.
The media were meant to be a means through which the public collectively perceives reality – not the creators of reality itself! Yet they act as if the latter is true and intended. That’s dangerous. They believe themselves in control of reality, to the point where they’re impossible to reason with. Confront them with actual facts, or principles, or laws of physics, and they either censor you – or cackle and carry on.
Biden’s behavior starts making sense when you understand he exists in a fantasy world, entirely conjured by the press and his staff. As do thousands of activists, ‘NGOs’ and cultist consumers of US government grants around the world. How does one reach these people, who have internalized the “logic” of Who/Whom? That might be the most important question facing not just the US, but the world, very soon.
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator
YouTube censors Brett Weinstein ivermectin clip
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 3, 2021
Big Tech’s social media platforms, as well as a plethora of corporate media, must still be nursing what is highly likely to feel like some very unpleasant “fresh and raw” egg on their face – after they were “forced” to take an abrupt U-turn in the wake of months of draconian censoring of any mention, and even the very possibility that coronavirus might have been human-engineered – instead of occurring naturally, randomly among China’s wildlife – as the previously approved narrative went.
What “forced” them to do it – (in reality, in a true democracy, nothing should ever be able to force a media outlet to do anything) – was the imperative of always aligning their editorial/moderation/censorship policies with a “preferred” narrative.
But after “the Wuhan lab theory” suddenly gained legit “citizenship status” in the media – it became clear that when the government says “JUMP” – this particular class of social and legacy media will only ever have this one “journalistic” question: “How high?”
It warrants keeping this big, overall picture in mind when considering how other Covid-related censorship topics are now being treated on the internet – and how quickly and seemingly inexplicably the tide may or may not turn on those as well. Whatever that tendency may be – it surely is not a “symptom” of free and independent journalism. Quite the opposite.
And as we wait to see where the “brave new world” might take us next, here’s an example: the censorship evolutionary biologist and DarkHorse Podcast host Brett Weinstein is now facing on YouTube – for exploring another previously outlawed as “heresy” topic – that of the drug Ivermectin’s merit, or lack thereof, in treating Covid patients.
YouTube has deleted a video of Weinstein discussing the topic with one of his peers, Heather Heying. More precisely, the video, “Why is Ivermectin not being used in other countries?,” is now gone from Weinstein’s “podcast clips” channel – while the full-length video still remains available on the main channel.
Does YouTube’s left censorship hand not know what the right hand is doing?
All joking aside, YouTube normally operates on a “three strikes” system – and it’s not at all clear how this might affect Weinstein’s channel, going forward.
Google bans Dr. Vladimir Zelenko from sharing Google Docs
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim the Net | June 2, 2021
Google has been expanding censorship around Covid topics and users it disapproves of from the public-facing platforms like YouTube and Search – to Google Docs.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko – a Westchester, New York-based US physician who became known last year for proposing alternative Covid treatments that was endorsed by then President Donald Trump – is on the receiving end.
After Facebook and YouTube restricted Zelenko’s presence on the social networks and Twitter suspended his account, the doctor is now prevented from sharing documents – six in all – using Google Docs.
The documents once again concern the Covid pandemic, discussing Zelenko’s own approach to the outbreak that included the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc, which he says played a significant role in preventing the need to hospitalize patients, Newsbusters reported.
Among the files Google is stopping him from sharing is also a letter he penned to New York Governor Cuomo and an opinion piece on the subject.
But since the same documents can be shared by other users, it is presumed that Google is targeting Zelenko specifically rather than this content per se.
Last year, the Times of Israel wrote that even though President Trump did not name the doctor who had written urging him to support the use of the combination of the three drugs, the description matched that of physician Vladimir Zev Zelenko.
Trump at the time said that he himself was taking this therapy, after “hearing a lot of good stories” about it.
Reacting to the latest round of censorship against him, Zelenko said that he had “called out the globalist elite” for their mishandling of Covid.
Counting Covid’s Deceptive Deaths
A look at the unorthodox way in which Covid-19 deaths are registered shows the numbers don’t add up
By Bernard Marx | OffGuardian | June 2, 2021
Four-thousand, nine-hundred and forty one. And rising. This number can only increase or, at best, stay the same. It can never go down.
Of all the innovations that governments and media around the world have come up with, seemingly independently of each other, during the ongoing Covid period, perhaps the most insidious is the daily running total of deaths.
As I write, the number given for Ireland stands at 4,941. And rising.
I have often wondered what the purpose of this number is. At a time when we are frequently told by our betters in the media and in the halls of government to ‘follow the science’, what could be more unscientific than a figure which, even when nobody is dying, looms above us as a warning that danger is ever present and nothing has improved. Bow down before its power, there’s nothing else to be done.
Take the number of people who are unemployed. Here’s a figure that has reached terrifying proportions without any sophistry or assistance from the behavioural science people. In fact, a lot of effort is expended on massaging this number down from the actual amount to levels which are considered more palatable for public consumption.
But imagine that we calculated the number of people who are unemployed by concocting a total of all the people who have been unemployed, at any time and for any duration, during the past 14 months? Or since unemployment began, a running total of all the people who have been unemployed ever?
What function would that number serve? Might it help prevent future unemployment? Might it better inform us of the skills and training required for our workforce? Might it be useful for analysis and reporting? As Frankie Howerd used to say, “Nay, nay, and thrice nay.” I wager any civil servant who proposed such an idea would soon be on their way to early retirement, as popular with politicians as those Gardai who do breathalyzer duty outside Leinster House.
Yet that’s exactly what we do with the running death total (and its near-twin the running case total). If the purpose of this number was to show us where we currently stand amidst the ebbs and flows of the pandemic, then surely a monthly or a weekly total would do the job better. We could then, as we do with the unemployment figure, compare this month to last (or this week to last) and judge which way we’re going. Are we moving steadily forwards? Are we tumbling hopelessly backwards? You get the idea.
Why haven’t we ever had a running total of deaths from cancer, heart attacks or diabetes? If we’d started even a year ago, these numbers would be at impressive levels now. They’d give the Covid tally a run for its money. There’d be opportunities for new betting markets based around causes of mortality, although spread bets might be distasteful for the contagious diseases.
I’m surprised Worldometer hasn’t tried to do something like this. To many of us, Worldometer is the central hub of running Covid death totals. At this very moment, it trumpets a formidable 609,767, deaths for the United States, a daunting 127,782 for the United Kingdom and, as mentioned at the start, a not inconsiderable 4,941 for Ireland.
But what do these frightening numbers refer to? Well, they refer to the number of Covid-19 deaths. So what’s all the fuss about? The fuss is about what constitutes a Covid-19 death. And what is meant, exactly, by a Covid-19 death? Ah, now that’s where it starts to get a bit complicated.
On 16th April 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued a document entitled “International Guidelines for Certification and Classification (Coding) of Covid-19 as Cause of Death”. This document provided strict rules for the registration of Covid-19 deaths, rules which were fundamentally different to those which were in place for the registration of deaths from other causes.
Some doctors expressed concern about what they felt would give a misleading picture of causes of mortality. These rules, they said, were unprecedented: they would lead to the overreporting of deaths from Covid-19 and the underreporting of deaths from other causes. Their warnings went unheeded and, for the most part, unreported. There was no place for prudence and common sense amid the frenzy and hysteria of the early days of the pandemic.
Since then, however, more and more medical professionals have added their voices to this dissenting chorus. The latest is Patrick O’ Connor, coroner for Mayo and public information officer of the Coroners Society of Ireland.
O’Connor has expressed his discomfort at official reporting of Covid-19 deaths in this country: “I think numbers that are recorded as Covid deaths may be inaccurate and do not have a scientific basis”, he said earlier this month.
Let’s take a look at the International Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD). For this section I am indebted to Dr. No, the author of the ‘Bad Medicine’ blog, for his succinct explanation of how the MCCD works and how, in practice, the WHO guidelines affect this process. I recommend you read his article about this if you would like a more detailed understanding of the topic.
The MCCD was introduced by the WHO in 1948. Its purpose was to create an international standard for the recording of deaths and to describe the sequence of events which led to a death, rather than just the immediate cause (as was common in many countries at that time).
Frame A (above) is the most important part of the MCCD. It is here that all significant information about a death is recorded. As you can see, Frame A has 2 boxes. Box 1 is for recording the cause of death, Box 2 is for recording contributing conditions. Box 1, the cause of death box, has four lines: the first line records the immediate cause of death, the remaining lines record any conditions which led to the immediate cause of death, with the last line containing the underlying cause of death. The idea is to record the sequence of events which led to the death.
To give an example. A person with diabetes dies from a heart attack, which was caused by heart disease.
So the first line in Box 1 contains ‘Myocardial Infarction’ (the clinical name for a heart attack) because a heart attack was the immediate cause of death. The second line contains ‘Ischaemic Heart Disease’ (the clinical name for heart disease) because this is the underlying cause of death. This is the condition which initiated the sequence of events which culminated in the person’s death: the heart disease led to a heart attack.
The remaining lines in Box 1 are left blank because this person had no other conditions which contributed to the sequence of events leading to their death. Diabetes is recorded in Box 2 because this is a contributing condition, rather than being a part of the sequence of events which led to death. This death will be registered as ischaemic heart disease (or simply heart disease) because this is the underlying cause of death.
Another example. A person dies from internal bleeding due to a ruptured artery as the result of a road traffic accident.
The first line in Box 1 contains ‘Internal Bleeding’ because this is the immediate cause of death. The second line contains ‘Ruptured Artery’ because this is what led to the internal bleeding. The third line contains ‘Road Traffic Accident’, as this was the underlying cause of death: it was a road traffic accident which initiated the sequence of events that led to the death.
In this instance, Box 2 is left blank as there were no contributing conditions. So, the road traffic accident led to the ruptured artery which led to the internal bleeding. This death will be registered as a road traffic accident.
The WHO’s guidelines define a Covid-19 death as “a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma).” This is an extremely vague definition and one which allows for a rather broad interpretation of what can be considered a Covid-19 death.
As can be seen from the HSE’s website or that of the UK’s NHS, there is a large overlap between the symptoms of Covid-19 and those of any number of other respiratory conditions or Influenza Like Illnesses (ILIs). Any of these other conditions can be considered a “clinically compatible illness”.
You will note that Covid does not have to be confirmed: a “probable” case is sufficient for inclusion as a death. As Dr. No puts it, “If it looks like Covid-19, it is Covid-19.”
The guidance goes on:
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.”
This is very important. What physicians are being told here is that, when they have identified a Covid-19 death (using the loose “if it looks like Covid” definition), then regardless of any pre-existing conditions which may have triggered severe Covid-19, the death must be registered and counted as a Covid-19 death. This goes against all conventions for identifying the cause of death.
So how does this relate to our MCCD form? Well, in our earlier examples of somebody dying from a heart attack and somebody dying in a road traffic accident, there should be no difference in the way the deaths are recorded. In fairness to the WHO, they are quite clear in their guidance that these two types of death should not be recorded as Covid-19.
(Unfortunately, this has not stopped overzealous authorities around the world from registering heart failure, motor accidents, suicides and murders as Covid deaths).
However, when it comes to most other types of death, we start getting into murky waters.Take the example of a person who dies from pneumonia, caused by immobilisation, which itself was caused by multiple sclerosis.
In this case, the underlying cause of death is multiple sclerosis. Why? Because multiple sclerosis led to immobilisation which led to pneumonia. So this death will be registered as multiple sclerosis.
Now, let’s imagine this person had tested positive for Covid-19.
Notice anything strange? Because of the WHO guidelines, the underlying cause of death is no longer multiple sclerosis, but is instead Covid-19. Multiple sclerosis (and immobilisation) gets moved to Box 2, it’s now been relegated to a contributing condition. This death will be registered as Covid-19. Remember the WHO said in their guidelines:
A death due to Covid-19 may not be attributed to another disease and should be counted independently of pre-existing conditions.”
A further issue with the above example is that the presence of Covid-19 is determined solely on the basis of a positive PCR test result.
According to the WHO’s clinical coding instructions, a death must be registered as Covid-19 if the patient received a positive test result, even if they never displayed any symptoms.
I’ll be looking at the problems with PCR testing in a future article, but it’s sufficient to say here that they are notoriously unreliable, with even the WHO themselves warning of their tendency to produce false-positive results.
So here we have the case of an unfortunate individual whose multiple sclerosis, over many years, caused them to become immobile. Immobility, sadly, can lead to pneumonia which, especially for the aged and/or immunocompromised, often results in death. However, because of the WHO guidance, the presence of a positive PCR result alone means that all of their medical history, the entire chain of events which led up to the person’s death, is cast aside and replaced by the misleading explanation of Covid-19.
But the issue goes even deeper. You’ll recall that the WHO’s definition of a Covid-19 death includes “probable” cases as well as “confirmed” ones. Our final example describes an individual who dies from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), caused by pneumonia, which itself was caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD).
As you can see, the underlying cause of death is COPD, which led to pneumonia, which led to ARDS. This death will, of course, be registered as COPD.
But what if this person had had contact with someone known to have Covid-19 or even with a person suspected of having it? Here’s what would happen to the MCCD:
The underlying cause of death is now ‘suspected Covid-19’, which, in the figures we see on the nightly news and in the vast majority of statistics made available by governments, is treated in exactly the same way as a confirmed Covid-19 death. The WHO’s clinical coding instructions insist that it is, so long as the deceased had “contact with (a) confirmed or probable case.” The COPD which caused this person’s pneumonia is cast aside, no longer considered to have played a part in the sequence of events that led to their death.
This is absurd. Yet this is how deaths around the world are now being recorded and registered.
If somebody is dying of heart disease, liver disease, respiratory disease, cancer, dementia or any other terminal illness, and they have a positive PCR test or have simply been in contact with somebody suspected of having Covid, their death is now registered and counted as a Covid-19 death.
Any pre-existing condition, no matter how serious and no matter what part it played in their ultimate demise, is moved to Box 2 of the MCCD and not recorded as the underlying cause of death. The WHO guidelines state, in the section entitled “Comorbidities”, that “if the decedent had existing chronic conditions…they should be reported in Part 2 of the medical certificate of cause of death.”
Conditions which for more than seventy years, since the introduction of the MCCD form, have been understood as underlying causes of death, are now rebranded as contributing factors. All to make way for the mighty Covid.
The result is a massive inflation of the numbers of Covid-19 deaths. As Patrick O’Connor, the Mayo coroner, says, when speaking about terminally ill patients,
If they prove to be Covid positive in a test, it is that (Covid) which is recorded as the principal cause of death — even though that person may have been terminally ill with a short life-expectancy prior to such testing.”
And, as we have seen, a test is not even necessary, as the WHO’s guidelines instruct physicians to include “probable” with “clinically compatible” illnesses in the tallies.
Patrick O’Connor
Even before the WHO issued their guidelines on 16th April last year, Italian authorities had been using a similar method to register Covid deaths, with 88% of patients there (up to 20th March 2020) having at least one comorbidity and many having two or three.
In addition to hugely inflating the number of deaths from Covid-19, this bizarre way of counting also distorts the mortality rate of the disease, making it seem far more deadly than it actually is.
In 2020, a total of 73,444 people died in England and Wales with Covid-19 recorded as their underlying cause of death. In response to a freedom of information request, on 29th March 2021, the UK’s Office for National Statistics revealed that only 9,400 (12.8%) of that number were recorded without pre-existing conditions.
On July 3rd last, Ireland’s then acting Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, tweeted,
In Ireland we counted all deaths in all settings, suspected cases even when no lab test was done, and included people with underlying terminal illnesses who died with Covid but not of it”
… revealing that the numbers of Covid-19 deaths in Ireland were vastly exaggerated and in no way reflected the lethality of the disease in this country.
Although the complete death statistics for 2020 have not yet been made available for Ireland, two weeks ago Kildare coroner Professor Denis Cusack published a report analysing deaths in that county during the pandemic. Of 230 deaths recorded with Covid-19 as the underlying cause, 228 (99.13%) had pre-existing conditions.
I would have thought that this was a significant finding, that fewer than 1% of the people who died from Covid-19 in County Kildare did not have comorbidities. But, like anything else that doesn’t fit in with their campaign of terror against the Irish people, the Irish media was having none of it.
While both RTE and The Irish Times gave coverage to Professor Cusack’s report, neither had anything to say about the 99.13% of Kildare’s Covid dead who had pre-existing medical conditions. Nor was there a mention of the average age of death in this cohort being 82.2 years of age.
Both news services instead chose to focus on selected aspects of the report which they used to support the ‘lethal virus’ narrative they have long favoured. Is this censorship? Maybe it’s just extremely poor journalism.
The running total of deaths is one of the pillars that supports this whole charade. The narrative of a deadly pandemic would never have worked without the impression of huge numbers of fatalities, countless lives ‘lost to Covid’. The unprecedented changes in the way deaths are counted allowed this to happen.
You would imagine such a fundamental change, one which has had such a colossal impact on every man, woman and child on the planet, would be widely reported and discussed. Yet it is almost impossible to find a mention of it anywhere in the mainstream media.
Although most of us have suffered under the heel of draconian Covid regulations, and will continue to suffer, some have profited greatly from this fiasco. We have seen how health scares have been manipulated for gain in the past, none more so than the Swine Flu pandemic that never was, in 2009, when governments, the WHO and pharmaceutical corporations colluded to profit at our expense.
There needs to be an urgent investigation, on a global scale, to find out how the Covid pantomime was allowed to happen. And we need one in Ireland, to determine who knew what and when, and exactly who has benefitted.
The current narrative being spun in Ireland is that we are close to ‘finding a way out’ of lockdown and that, if we behave ourselves, we might be permitted some limited freedoms during the summer. This is hardly surprising. We’re coming to the end of coronavirus season, which means it’s so much harder to inflate ‘cases’. And because mortality rates in the northern hemisphere are typically at their lowest during the summer months, it’s not as easy to attribute huge numbers of deaths to Covid-19. It was the same last summer.
But the government has been preparing for this. Already, there are 5 walk-in testing centres in operation in Ireland, with many more planned – a perfect way to boost the numbers up and keep us on our toes for the summer months. And, of course, the government reserves the right, at any moment, to slap us all back into lockdown.
At the same time, it has been made abundantly clear that whatever limited freedoms we might be permitted will be contingent on mass vaccination and, before long, vaccine passports and digital identity.
And don’t forget, coronavirus season comes around again in September. But, as we have seen, the lethality of this disease, for which we’ve radically changed the way we live and have forsworn so much of our freedom, has been blown out of all proportion by the fraudulent way in which deaths are registered.
We suffered under austerity for a decade. It’s hard to believe that the same politicians who decimated our health service, causing untold hardship and death, now want to protect us.
Do we trust they are spending our money honestly and wisely? How much is being spent on mass vaccination, testing, tracing, the vaccine passport infrastructure? And what is the cost of the Covid period to our economy? The whole circus makes a mockery of the years of austerity and of every person who suffered because of them.
Then there is the cost to our health.
Many have lost their lives because of this deception, but you don’t see a running total of their deaths on the news every night. How many have died due to a lack of primary health care, which has been sidelined and neglected, sacrificed at the altar of Covid? How many cancelled surgeries and missed screenings? What about those in urgent need of treatment who were too frightened to attend a hospital? And those who were turned away before they even reached a hospital, because Gardai at a checkpoint deemed their need not sufficiently urgent?
The mental health of our nation has taken a nosedive, not due to Covid but because of lockdowns and other unwarranted sanctions against our people. Loneliness, depression and despair have all taken their toll. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hardly a radical anti-lockdown stronghold, has estimated that one third of all excess mortality in the United States during 2020 was due to reasons other than Covid-19.
We’ve been deceived. When important facts are left out of a narrative in order to foster a misconception, we call it lying by omission. We have been lied to by politicians, public health officials, wealthy media barons and the stooges who write for them. And we have paid a terrible price. In the twilight of our freedom, it’s time for us to stand up for the truth.
Bernard Marx is the pseudonym used by a writer and teacher based in Ireland. Bernard’s areas of interest include history, politics and popular music. You can read more his work are Notes from the New Normal
COVID Corruption: Assaulting Human Norms
By Omar Khan | Uncommon Wisdom | May 31, 2021
Well, the seminal errors of the Covidian narrative stockpile so fetidly, you keep thinking one day, the stench will be so overpowering, that even those who have essentially put their critical faculties into suspended animation, will rally, finding that this reeks to high Heaven. Some restoratives surely, we think, will thaw their frozen wits.
I keep meandering back through the history of this ill begotten assault on life and liberty.
Imagine this being designated a “novel” Coronavirus. Well, if it was “massaged” in a Wuhan lab as it now seems all the craze to assert, perhaps there was some novelty to it. Otherwise, as we are advised, there are numerous coronaviruses parading around. Even C-19 is now relegated to only being the fourth most widespread in the US.
And now we find, from antibody tests and more, that some varietal was already doing the circuit in 2019. At any rate, some prior immunity exists. And if this is truly the descendant or even Frankensteinian stepchild of SARS, then as former Chief Medical Officer of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon has reminded us, though it is 80% identical, the immune systems of those exposed to SARS seem to “recognize” SARS-CoV-2, even these 17 years hence. Novelty therefore takes another nosedive.
So, this first assertion, right out of the gate, meant to terrorize us by suggesting an unknown pathogen without parallel, that could hoodwink our immune system completely, was poppycock. And we knew soon enough, it was far more infectious than SARS, but far less lethal. And mortality is where we should have kept our eyes fixed, not the delusions of asserted “cases” from unreliable tests. So, no, not so “novel” at least in impact.
Then, you have to wonder, if even mistaken as “novel,” surely there would be extraordinary curiosity, not fixated dogmatism, about this pathogen. However, it took only a few months, before torrential disdain was showered on any who raised questions as to whether we were over-reacting.
There was censorious outrage lavished on some of the world’s most eminent research experts in meta-analysis like John Ioannidis of Stanford, when he pointed out the lethality seemed less than was being forecasted for example, or when the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship kindly offered itself up as a floating case study, or when Knut Wittowski “sacrilegiously” suggested sunshine and fresh air are lethal to viruses with seasonality as a fairly evident way to corroborate that, and so many others. They were literally chased from the public sphere.
They have been only vindicated since, and why rationally, anyone actually interested in public health as a leader, wouldn’t have wanted a big tent of diverse views, a kind of Manhattan Project to tackle this virus and grapple with providing care, cannot be logically answered, except by accepting they were engaged in a charade of public health only, and other agendas were afoot that could brook no dissent.
In fact, if you consider it, how could they know who to censor? In other words, how with a “novel” coronavirus, could you have so readily stress tested alternatives to arrive at any credible consensus by then? Surely if genuinely interested in leadership and health, immensely experienced and credible experts indicating we may be overzealous, that this may be less deadly, more treatable and more manageable, would be manna from heaven. Such views would surely be welcomed, and would be carefully assessed, with trials done before the world was blown up, and irrevocable harm done to urban centers, small businesses, people needing desperate attention for other health issues, and before children’s lives and educations were turned topsy turvy. Yes, “if.”
By the way, it wasn’t even just Ioannidis and Wittowski. Similar alarms were raised and alternatives suggested by luminaries as diverse as Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in Germany; Dr. Pietro Vernazza, Swiss specialist on Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen; Professor Hendrik Streek, Professor of virology and director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research at Bonn University; Dr. David Katz founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center; Dr. Peter Goetzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford and later co-author of The Great Barrington Declaration; Dr. Anders Tegnell, that sainted man, Swedish State Epidemiologist who showed the world all of these contrary views were essentially right; Dr. Pablo Goldschmidt, Argentine-French virologist, Professor of Molecular Pharmacology at Universite Pierre et Marie Curie Paris; Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine and Public Health at Stanford and later co-author of The Great Barrington Declaration; Dr. Tom Jefferson, British epidemiologist based in Rome; Dr. Michael Levitt, Professor of Biochemistry at Stanford; German Network of Evidence Based Medicine… and so many more (distillations of their points can be found archived on Off-Guardian who collated these remarkable instances of “informed lack of consent.”)
When such a phalanx of experience, talent and credibility speaks at a seemingly desperate time, how could jurisdiction after jurisdiction, pillory them, ostracize them, mischaracterize what they had to say? Why that, rather than be desperately curious, and gratefully keen to explore their insights?
This is particularly so as you cannot possibly imagine that this constellation of talent had any motivation other than wishing to save and serve our global and local cultures, lives and livelihoods. And that they have continued to do so, despite media attacks, smears, economic disincentives, renders every word more plausible. After all, we know there are evident incentives of being proponents of the prevailing mythos. We cannot assert any incentive other than integrity and genuine conviction for refusing to acquiesce to the pervasive gaslighting and whitewashing.
Mass Manipulation
While stifling what should have been real life-lines, and once more we are seeing virtually all of their assessments vindicated today, we were run over by a freak-show of blatant stupidities.
With constant panic porn flashing incessantly, a multi-billion dollar industry of fraudulent tests is pushed through a 2-day peer review, by Dr. Doom (Drosten, who helped create the application of the test, sat on the review board of the publication “validating it” and profits from the tests that were mysteriously ready for production and shipping almost ahead of need). We were to ignore demonstrations of false positives, the need for amplification settings to be below 30 (WHO and others initially set them between 35 and 45, at the latter, a papaya fruit tested positive), as well as clarifications the test is not meant to be diagnostic (as per its inventor and as per the literature found in each test and finally “confessed” to post Trump by WHO as well).
And in one of the greatest bits of medical fraud, in plain sight, known by all, but still glossed over, a “case” was converted from someone who had symptoms to “someone who tested positive.”
The latter could be manipulated by the above settings, further counted on to be magnified via false positives, which ironically get worse in percentage terms as incidence goes down. The whole world held hostage to the vagaries of a non-diagnostic test, whereas had we focused on the symptomatic, no one would even have known we were in more than a really ugly influenza season.
Next, we were invited to ignore the age stratification, as the median age of death was over 80. So, lest people be cut down in the bloom of their 70’s and 80’s (and even there we can improve their odds with early treatment, which has been scrupulously avoided, or again smeared, or else “slow walked” almost catatonically en route to being reviewed), we were ready, for the first time in history, to quarantine the healthy!
We asserted “asymptomatic transmission” of which no credible instance has been found in over 14 months, being confirmed again and again even with the recent UK trials done with 9 large, teeming events that barely scraped together 16 “cases” from 60,000 people applying no COVID protocols, including a football FA Club Final and Brit Awards. You will have noticed, a very appreciable lack of media coverage of this “welcome” news. And the US CDC, now in the “vaccine selling” business has instructed clinics to only count as an instance of post-vaccination reinfection, those who, wait for it, have “symptoms.” The blood curdles at these fork tongued guideposts.
So, when the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration pointed out that when risk profiles are so vastly different, we should address and target care accordingly, there was howling and venting and the attacks were unleashed far and wide. They had pointed out this particular pathogen seems to focus on the elderly and so this pandemic tracks normal mortality and therefore in terms of both population size and adjusting for age, is considerably less lethal than the Hong Kong Flu of 1968 and the Asian Flu of the late 50’s, saying nothing of the epochal Spanish Flu in 1918 which infected one third of the global population of that time of which 10% perished!
By comparison, the current Indian death tally after all the shamefully imbalanced reporting is about 325,000 (despite the most egregious liberties with death certificates there, reported on by 161 doctors from N.I.C.E, National Influenza Care Experts, on May 24th in a letter to Prime Minister Modhi claiming guidelines given to them indicate that if PCR test is positive, even if someone died of accidents or clearly of other causes, the cause of death is to be recorded as C-19). Yet applying conventional death certificates, where only direct causation led to an entry, India lost 20 million in the Spanish Flu.
Painfully but necessarily, life went on. High time to adjust our hackles… and self-imposed shackles.
The Indian instance cited above is simply symptomatic of another fraud we embarked upon early on, taking liberties with how death certificates were filled out. Riddle me this, if truly so lethal, why was this necessary suddenly, after norms of indicating primary cause of death were the mainstay of medical practice for decades?
Why did we have to, in the US, incentivize via insurance, labeling COVID deaths? Why in the UK did we originally say anyone tested positively in the last 6 months, irrespective of comorbidities was a COVID death? This shrieks of outright dark comedy or at least ludicrous parody. But that was “fixed” to only doing that for those who tested positive in the last 28 days! So no one knows. Families have howled outrage, reported of course in secondary media, about their loved one being mis-tagged in this way, when they clearly passed from other causes. Who cares? Can’t interfere with the noxious narrative. In parts of South Asia, with cancer and blood poisoning along with a positive test on the death certificate, you guessed it, COVID wins the prize!
And the booby traps for sanity abounded. And the question to be asked is, why? For example,
why do we “lock down”?
This is a penal remedy, never applied before, disdained in public health literature until 2020, indicated in a 2019 report by WHO to
“not be done in any circumstances.”
One month in Wuhan blows up centuries of experience? Really? Are we welding doors shut next? Or staging collapsed bodies on streets with people in alien suits standing over them (you wondered about all those UFO sightings… voila!)?
As Dr. Risch of Yale has pointed out, with such tonic simplicity, “locking down” is not even coherent once the pathogen has spread! It’s fairly obvious once that’s pointed out. And it’s airborne, and almost all infections are in tight indoor spaces. Anyone not pledging fealty to a cult religion, can work this out. And in the face of non locked down jurisdictions with open societies and economies (US States, Sweden, Bulgaria) flourishing, and 30+ studies confirming no benefit from this illogical imposition, and the Oxford Stringency Index showing an inverse relationship between degree of shutdown and health outcomes, we are truly “stoned” on some narcotic to keep invoking this. Oh, and the belligerence if you question it, as if some canonical certainty was being desecrated.
Masking was not recommended by Fauci or WHO, and suddenly realizing that it could be a signature of totemic compliance, it was asserted, though study after study and simply common sense indicates it is a life leeching absurdity, to have you inhale your own waste, while choking off your oxygen supply. As one eminent, also censored, once tenured professor of Physics, Denis Rancourt says,
“The magical ‘one way mask’, which does not protect the wearer but acts as ‘source control’, is an invention of propaganda. It is contrary to the physics of breathing aerosol particles suspended in the fluid air. It is ridiculous fantasy.”
Frankly, the size of the particles are so small as to make this beyond fantasy. And if we truly believed they captured viral particles, would we blithely be leaving these masks lying around, or even throwing them in the open trash, so their harvest can waft at will? The boxes the cloth masks come in, have disclaimers to confess they don’t protect you against C-19. After all, they have openings so you can breathe and see. And there is no correlation between masking or its absence and COVID results. Again, the open US States have put that to rest. But thou must not question! “They say,” is the holy homily, and it must prevail.
So the round-up is: stifle dissent (which admits we have an agenda), create a “test” that doesn’t test and which can be manipulated, change all the guidance based on one month in Wuhan and Italian nursing home deaths (of which later authorities said 12% only could be directly ascribed to C-19), “order” indefinite mass incarceration, and decide without debate that this one source of harm, this one consideration, trumps everything else in the world: health, wealth, family, work, education, poverty, everything.
Why? Who says? A few models. Hmm. Sounds pretty sane. I’m ready to jettison everything I worked for, lived for, my city, culture, neighborhood, travel, way of life, on “asserted apocalypse” without discussing less destructive mitigation with a slew of the world’s most eminent doctors and scientists who say, based on data, we can do better. No agenda there. And if you don’t want the above poison pill, you’re out to kill everyone!
You’re out to kill me, the holy, carcass preserving, center of all global paranoia, me!
Vaccinating Sense
I don’t want to go over past ground to make the necessary point here. As medical luminaries like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Pierre Kory and many others have pointed out, we know there are clearly effective, preventive treatments, and even some real treatments post hospitalization far more effective than the ‘wait and see’ nihilism that so many of these doctors at the forefront of treatment consider “medical malpractice.”
Of course, these treatments were slandered, fraudulently attacked, even though these are widely in use, no side effects, with multiple studies and numerous countries where they’ve been shown to work magnificently (Mexico, India, Zimbabwe, South Africa, parts of the US and more). But since our so called “vaccines”, perhaps the real “point” of this whole inhuman grotesquerie, are only approved tentatively for “emergency use” (safety trials won’t be complete until 2023), then other treatments if established, would remove “the emergency necessity” and that would jeopardize the whole scabrous scam.
Serial entrepreneur Steve Kirsch has even offered $2 million to anyone who can demonstrate that all the randomized trials and global as well as research evidence is wrong, and that the NIH and WHO concern about Fluvoxamine and Ivermectin is justified. A straight $2 million windfall or grant. No one has taken him up on it. His credibility as a medical entrepreneur and philanthropist is unimpeachable.
A few points. You don’t have to remotely be an “anti-vaxxer” (those who oppose them on principle) to be concerned by any or all of the following:
Safety protocols are incomplete
The mRNA treatments are not “vaccines” they are symptom suppressors. Since the vulnerable were not part of the clinical trials, and those trials had such a small subset of the population anyway (‘nominal’ is a generous term), we really don’t know how well they do for the elderly, the vulnerable, etc. And how in that period could we know anything about “safety” and “efficacy?” Booster shots are already being discussed.
All of them have blood clotting issues, 4,000 deaths plus in the US, 10,000 in Europe, both very likely an undercount, as only a small percentage make it into the adverse effects database, and we have swelling evidence, of doctors extremely reluctant to link “anything” to a vaccine, even if a healthy person, within days, dies. Of course you can say, “healthy people also die.” But since in tabulating COVID lethality the norms were at the other extremity, where a “whiff” of COVID put it on the death certificate, we can clearly see again, wanton inconsistency, and again narrative protection at all costs. These deaths are more than the cumulative recorded death from all other vaccines combined, for an illness you have to be tested for to even know you have!
Re-infection has been rife, and mass surges in cases and deaths after mass vaccination in populations (Israel, UK, Gibraltar, Seychelles, Maldives), and now with the Chinese vaccines, Bahrain, Chile and UAE, either no improvement or serious spikes in cases and deaths.
How can anyone call this normal? And so people are opting out, and mania has set in. To induce you to get vaccinated, free ice cream, drinks, the NYC Mayor offering free burgers, lotteries linked to vaccination, dating apps linked to incentivize sexual license.
Yet, as noted, we hear people are getting re-infected? Doesn’t matter, speed past that, just get a jab in every arm. And children? They have no risk, they don’t transmit the disease, shown over and over, Sweden had no deaths in schools with schools open throughout. But suddenly, a 12-year-old can consent in North Carolina to being “jabbed”? Can they also vote, drive, have sex, smoke and drink while they’re at it?
Can anyone call this remotely normal? Experimental gene therapy asserting “safety” you cannot possibly even know (Salk Institute Study indicates that the spike proteins being injected themselves, without even a virus involved, can cause the virus). Future impact is unknown, people are understandably spooked. How is this anywhere close to “informed consent” by the Nuremberg standards?
And what has happened to the EU? But for a few standouts like Denmark and Sweden, they are ready to require “vaccine passports” thereby ignoring those who have recovered and don’t need experimental substances in their body, or those below 60 and healthy with no statistical risk, or children with a truly non-existent risk profile (symptoms easily treatable for them), and with abundant, far safer, preventive treatments? With plummeting numbers, no “pandemic” in Europe, no excess mortality for 2020, what in God’s name is the panic to just jab everything and everyone in sight, including innocent children we are conducting “human trials” on?
This is horror movie material, but chillingly real.
By the way, despite a nominal surge (large in a relative sense as their numbers are so tame), Japan still has among the lowest numbers of deaths per million in the world. 1% of the population is vaccinated.
None of it makes sense, none of it is plausible, any more than the face diapers, penal lock ups, fake non-diagnostic tests, death certificate manipulation, avoiding treatment that reduces hospitalization risk by over 85%, censoring new insights from the most credible experts. All this while blowing up the economy, magnifying poverty, killing children through hunger and awaiting the reckoning when all the currency printing eventually comes home to roost.
So, we have to stop “asking” for relief and move to “demanding” it. And we have to stop acquiescing and trying to “persuade.” No one is this villainously stupid. Villainous maybe. So you can’t “persuade” someone out of a pathology or a psychosis. We can be respectfully, lawfully, civilly disobedient, and make our voices heard, in concert, and purposefully.
This isn’t Life
C.J. Hopkins, writing from “New Normal” Germany describes this version of “living”:
“Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally ‘vaccinated’.”
Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission.” Sound appealing?
Should I await docilely to be told when to go out, where to go out, what experimental substance to have shot into my body and that of my family? Should I welcome no stimulus, no abandon, no real laughter or mirth, no experiencing of human aptitudes, or going freely to other lands and immersing in other cultures or relishing the world as a part of my birthright? Is it really all right for us to have these political scavengers pick on the remains of our autonomy?
Poet laureate Seamus Heaney writes so unforgettably:
“History says, don’t hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up,
And hope and history rhyme.”
Time to see if we can’t catch one of those waves.
The prose, the poetry, the rhymes, the chimes, of our lives are at stake. And there we must all decide to take a stand, however, whenever and wherever we can, for the future we seek.
“I Don’t Know of a Bigger Story in the World” Right Now Than Ivermectin: NY Times Best-Selling Author
So why are journalists not covering it?
By Nick Corbishley | Naked Capitalism | May 25, 2021
Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author, has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.
Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.
For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets.
“I really wish the world could see both sides,” Capuzzo laments. But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.
That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor. It’s also the reason why I decided to dedicate today’s post to Capuzzo’s article. Put simply, as many people as possible –particularly journalists — need to read his story.
As Capuzzo himself says, “I don’t know of a bigger story in the world.”
Total News Blackout
On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin. A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence. And this is no surprise given how little information is actually seeping out into the public arena.
A news blackout by the world’s leading media came down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain. Reporters who trumpeted the COVID-19 terror in India and Brazil didn’t report that Ivermectin was crushing the P-1 variant in the Brazilian rain forest and killing COVID-19 and all variants in India. That Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America wasn’t news, but mocking the continent’s peasants for taking horse paste was. Journalists denied the world knowledge of the most effective life-saving therapies in the pandemic, Kory said, especially among the elderly, people of color, and the poor, while wringing their hands at the tragedy of their disparate rates of death.
Three days after Kory’s testimony, an Associated Press “fact-check reporter” interviewed Kory “for twenty minutes in which I recounted all of the existing trials evidence (over fifteen randomized and multiple observational trials) all showing dramatic benefits of Ivermectin,” he said. Then she wrote: “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.” Like many critics, she didn’t explore the Ivermectin data or evidence in any detail, but merely dismissed its “insufficient evidence,” quoting instead the lack of a recommendation by the NIH or WHO. To describe the real evidence in any detail would put the AP and public health agencies in the difficult position of explaining how the lives of thousands of poor people in developing countries don’t count in these matters.
Not just in media but in social media, Ivermectin has inspired a strange new form of Western and pharmaceutical imperialism. On January 12, 2021, the Brazilian Ministry of Health tweeted to its 1.2 million followers not to wait with COVID-19 until it’s too late but “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment,” only to have Twitter take down the official public health pronouncement of the sovereign fifth largest nation in the world for “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” (Early treatment is code for Ivermectin.) On January 31, the Slovak Ministry of Health announced its decision on Facebook to allow use of Ivermectin, causing Facebook to take down that post and removed the entire page it was on, the Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries.
In Argentina, Professor and doctor Hector Carvallo, whose prophylactic studies are renowned by other researchers, says all his scientific documentation for Ivermectin is quickly scrubbed from the Internet. “I am afraid,” he wrote to Marik and his colleagues, “we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet…” As Kory’s testimony was climbing toward nine million views, YouTube, owned by Google, erased his official Senate testimony, saying it endangered the community. Kory’s biggest voice was silenced.
“The Most Powerful Entity on Earth”
Malcom X once called the media “the most powerful entity on the earth.” They have, he said, “the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of masses”. Today, that power is now infused with the power of the world’s biggest tech and social media companies. Together social and traditional media have the power to make a medicine that has saved possibly millions of lives during the current pandemic disappear from the conversation. When it is covered, it’s almost always in a negative light. Some media organizations, including the NY Times, have even prefaced mention of the word “ivermectin” — a medicine that has done so much good over its 40-year lifespan that its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 — with the word “controversial.”
Undeterred, many front-line doctors have tried to persuade their respective health regulators of the unparalleled efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a covid treatment. They include Dr. Tess Lawrie, a prominent independent medical researcher who, as Capuzzo reports, evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs for the WHO and the National Health Service to set international clinical practice guidelines:
“[She] read all twenty-seven of the Ivermectin studies Kory cited. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal,” she announced, and sent a rapid meta-analysis, an epidemiolocal statistical multi-study review considered the highest form of medical evidence, to the director of the NHS, members of parliament, and a video to Prime Minister Boris Johnson with “the good news… that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19…” and Ivermectin should immediately “be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”
Ignored by British leaders and media, Lawrie convened the day-long streaming BIRD conference—British Ivermectin Recommendation Development—with more than sixty researchers and doctors from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, Belgium, Argentina, South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Australia, and Japan. They evaluated the drug using the full “evidence-to-decision framework” that is “the gold standard tool for developing clinical practice guidelines” used by the WHO, and reached the conclusion that Ivermectin should blanket the world.
“Most of all you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor, first and foremost,” Lawrie told the prime minster, “with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start saving lives now.” She heard nothing back.
Ivermectin’s benefits were also corroborated by Dr. Andrew Hill, a renowned University of Liverpool pharmacologist and independent medical researcher, and the senior World Health Organization/UNITAID investigator of potential treatments for COVID-19. Hill’s team of twenty-three researchers in twenty-three countries had reported that, after nine months of looking for a COVID-19 treatment and finding nothing but failures like Remdesivir— “we kissed a lot of frogs”— Ivermectin was the only thing that worked against COVID-19, and its safety and efficacy were astonishing—“blindingly positive,” Hill said, and “transformative.” Ivermectin, the WHO researcher concluded, reduced COVID-19 mortality by 81 percent.
Why All the Foot Dragging?
Yet most health regulators and governments continue to drag their feet. More evidence is needed, they say. All the while, doctors in most countries around the world have no early outpatient medicines to draw upon in their struggle against the worst pandemic in century. Drawing on his own experience, Capuzzo describes the absence of treatments for COVID-19 as a global crisis:
When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came
down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. The locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her
vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single eective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing.
There are three possible explanations for health regulators’ refusal to allow the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:
- As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
- Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin. They include ivermectin’s original manufacturer, Merck, which has an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, in Phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19. That might explain the company’s recent statement claiming that there is “no scientific basis whatsoever for a potential therapeutic effect of ivermectin against COVID-19.
- If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines. One of the basic conditions for the emergency use authorisation granted to the vaccines currently being used against covid is that there are no alternative treatments available for the disease. As such, if ivermectin or some other promising medicine such as fluvoxamine were approved as an effective early treatment for Covid-19, the vaccines could be stripped of authorisation.
This may explain why affordable, readily available and minimally toxic drugs are not repurposed for use against Covid despite the growing mountains of evidence supporting their efficacy.
Ivermectin has already been approved as a covid-19 treatment in more than 20 countries. They include Mexico where the mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Scheinbaum, recently said that the medicine had reduced hospitalisations by as much as 76%. As of last week, 135,000 of the city’s residents had been treated with the medicine. The government of India — the world’s second most populous country and one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of medicines — has also recommended the use of ivermectin as an early outpatient treatment against covid-19, in direct contravention of WHO’s own advice.
Dr Vikas P. Sukhatme, the dean of Emory School of Medicine, recently wrote in a column for the Times of India that deploying drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine in India is likely to “rapidly reduce the number of COVID-19 patients, reduce the number requiring hospitalization, supplemental oxygen and intensive care and improve outcomes in hospitalized patients.”
Four weeks after the government included ivermectin and budesonide among its early treatment guidelines, the country has recorded its lowest case count in 40 days.
In many of India’s regions the case numbers are plunging in almost vertical fashion. In the capital Delhi, as in Mexico City, hospitalisations have plummeted. In the space of 10 days ICU occupancy fell from 99% to 70%. Deaths are also falling. The test positivity ratio slumped from 35% to 5% in just one month.
One of the outliers of this trend is the state of Tamil Nadu, where cases are still rising steeply. This may have something to do with the fact that the state’s newly elected governor, MK Stalin, decided to exclude ivermectin from the region’s treatment protocol in favor of Remdesivir. The result? Soaring cases. Late last week, Stalin reversed course once again and readopted ivermectin.
For the moment deaths in India remain extremely high. And there are concerns that the numbers are being under-reported. Yet they may also begin to fall in the coming days. In all of the countries that have used ivermectin widely, fatalities are the last thing to fall, after case numbers and hospitalizations. Of course, there’s no way of definitively proving that these rapid falloffs are due to the use of ivermectin. Correlation, even as consistent as this, is not causation. Other factors such as strict lockdowns and travel restrictions no doubt also play a part.
But a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in three meta-analyses.
India’s decision to adopt ivermectin, including as a prophylaxis in some states, is already a potential game-changer. As I wrote three weeks ago, if case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities fall in India as precipitously as they have in other countries that have adopted ivermectin, it could even become a watershed moment. But for that to happen, the news must reach enough eyes and ears. And for that to happen, reporters must, as Capuzzo says, begin to do their job and report both sides of this vital story.
Featured Video
Ivermectin and iodine
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
UAE tortured, killed journalist for opposing Israel normalization
The Cradle | October 31, 2026
UAE security officers detained, tortured, and killed Emirati poet and news editor Habib al-Sayegh in August 2019, shortly after he published a column opposing UAE normalization with Israel, according to a newly published book.
“Princes and Thieves,” a book by investigative journalist Matthew Cole published on 25 October, alleges that UAE security officers raided Sayegh’s Abu Dhabi home shortly after the publication of the column, hooded him in front of his wife and took him to a detention facility where he was tortured to death.
His interrogators reportedly pulled out several of his teeth with pliers and beat him repeatedly with a sharp metal object.
On 11 August 2019, Sayegh criticized the UAE’s plan to normalize relations with Israel as part of the Abraham Accords in his weekly column for Khaleej newspaper. The column was titled “Israel Is Our Real Enemy and A Dangerous Project.”
Sayegh described Israel as “a real and natural enemy” while questioning “who authorized the normalizers to speak on behalf of everyone?”
Nine days after the column was published, Emirati state media announced his death, without stating a cause. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Ivermectin and iodine
- Congratulations climate skeptics — you are a ‘Hybrid weapon of war’ and a growing public health threat
- ‘The Arab Vote’: How Israeli Racism Has Ruined Their Elections
- Israel forces Palestinians in Gaza to choose between assassination alone or death with their families: Report
- US Approves Sale of 500 Patriot Missiles to Ukraine, Deliveries May Take Years
- German Imperialism: An Urgent Explainer
- Backed by AAP, West Virginia Proposal Would Allow Dental Hygienists to Give HPV Vaccine to 9-Year-Olds
- Poland Is the Symptom and Europe Is the Patient
- UAE security forces tortured, killed journalist for opposing Israel normalization: Report
- They Compared the Spice to the Drug. The Spice Won — Again. (Part 2)
- If Americans Knew
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- 1,300 will gather in Palo Alto on Nov. 1 for Z3 Conference on Zionism
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- The Long Arm of AIPAC
- Genocidal intent behind Hebron assault, rights group says
- This week, Israel killed 8-year-old who survived bombing that wiped out her family
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Israeli soldier poses at damaged Lebanon church, sparking anger
- New Report. Manufacturing the Great Replacement: Is Israel behind one of the largest racist influence campaigns ever documented?
- ‘Arab voice doesn’t count’: Jewish Israeli blocs reject Palestinian support
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
