Telegraph’s Global Security Correspondents Claim No Trade Off Between Lockdowns and the Economy
By Will Jones • Lockdown Sceptics • May 12, 2021
The Telegraph‘s Global Health Security correspondents Paul Nuki and Sarah Newey claimed this morning that there is “no trade off” between the economy and public health when it comes to COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Writing in the newspaper, the correspondents (whose coverage is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) write that the “‘health v economy’ trade-off” is “false” because “countries where the virus was swiftly contained – such as Vietnam – have seen less economic damage, plus far fewer deaths”.
This claim, based on one country, fails to acknowledge that the entire South East Asian region, regardless of the measures taken, has had a much milder experience of COVID-19 than some other parts of the world, particularly Europe and the Americas. Furthermore, while it may be true that Vietnam’s early border closures produced better outcomes (there is some evidence of this), that bird has well and truly flown for most of the world so the example of Vietnam is now irrelevant as far as this pandemic is concerned.
Perhaps, though, they have a future pandemic in mind. In fact, the peer-reviewed evidence is that lockdowns have no impact on the epidemic death toll (although it’s worth noting that Vietnam, which Nuki and Newey hold up as an example we should follow in future, has never imposed a full, country-wide lockdown). It’s also not clear how countries which close their borders to an endemic virus can ever hope to open them again – a problem Vietnam is currently experiencing. Vietnam is also not exactly an international global hub.
The article is part the Global Health Security team’s promotion of an agenda to give the World Health Organisation more funding and more power to declare pandemics faster and be more proactive in ensuring compliance amongst states with public health edicts. They note approvingly that the pandemic has “thrust health to the centre stage, and may be an opportunity to promote a ‘green and healthy recovery’”. They appear to like the idea of a fast-acting global government imposing lockdowns so we can all be like Vietnam and “contain” the virus quickly, supposedly without suffering economic damage despite the vast disruption to the global economy this would bring.
Nuki and Newey highlight the problem of “viral misinformation” as one of 13 “mistakes” made early in the pandemic, though they blame the internet and social media rather than the WHO, despite its part in promoting myths about the virus such as that it doesn’t spread between humans and it doesn’t spread via aerosols.
But are Nuki and Newey engaging in disseminating misinformation of their own, making the bizarre claim that public health containment strategies have no trade-off with the economy based on a single unrepresentative country? When the U.K. economy shrank by a record 9.9% in 2020, this claim is frankly ridiculous and such claims are at odds with the Telegraph’s overall coverage of the way different countries have managed the pandemic, which has been quite balanced. Should the paper really be allowing a team of journalists whose work is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to use its platform to promote an agenda of enhanced global control in the name of public health?
Why are we being lied to about Covid? There’s no good reason
By Dr Mike Yeadon | Conservative Woman | May 10, 2021
Be in no doubt, among the reasons that voices and opinions like mine are never heard in the main media is extreme censorship more suited to China than a liberal democracy. Please allow me to illustrate with an example close to my heart why it is high time for us to change our response.
Ivermectin is one of the WHO’s ‘essential drugs’ which all countries should have access to. It’s very cheap as its patent has long expired; it’s one of the most-used drugs in world history; it’s extraordinarily safe; it is often life-saving against parasitic infections. It is also one of the best-established pharmaceutical treatments for Covid-19, showing benefit in every stage of the disease, in multiple independent clinical trials of varying quality. On January 3, 2021, Dr Tess Lawrie attempted to alert the Prime Minister to the potential of ivermectin. Her video here was pulled from YouTube within hours of posting, though it survives on Vimeo. The paper by the FLCCC group of US intensivists (whose survival rates for severe Covid-19 are best in class) that was the inspiration for Dr Lawrie’s work was accepted after extensive open peer review (including two career employees of the FDA) and ‘provisionally accepted’ by the ‘open science’ journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. The screenshot of the abstract tweeted by Clare Craig shown here attracted more than 100,000 views. Then, mysteriously, it was rejected and pulled by the Frontiers editor in chief. It is still here in cached form though the Ministry of Truth has been at work and placed it in a memory hole, so no trace survives on Frontiers’ own website.
Intended for a Special Issue on ‘repurposed drugs’ for Covid-19, various guest editors were so incensed at this behaviour that they resigned in protest. You can read their letter here. They concluded that ‘these unfortunate events constitute gross editorial misconduct by Frontiers.’ Fortunately this major paper is now published by the American Journal of Therapeutics and can be read in its final form here.
This nevertheless successfully delayed by nearly six months its circulation to leading public health bodies starting mid-November. A copy was sent to Sir Jeremy Farrar (boss of the Wellcome Trust and member of Sage) who passed it on to Professor Peter Horby (also on Sage), amongst others, on November 18, 2020. So the efficacy of ivermectin must be well known to the Government’s advisers, but they have done nothing about it. Likewise, the formal and rigorous meta-analysis performed by Dr Tess Lawrie’s team at the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd has been communicated to Matt Hancock, but without reply.
I am telling you about this, because all that governments, their scientific advisers, big pharma (here’s Merck, who originally developed & marketed it) and regulatory agencies will tell you is that ivermectin doesn’t work in Covid-19. They are lying. I am inviting any of them to sue me, but they won’t, for I would win easily.
If ivermectin was more widely used, there’d be no need for vaccines.
To date, despite the brains, expertise and stature of those scientists questioning the official Covid-19 narrative, as a group they quite patently have been ineffective. And this is unlikely to change while, as polite professionals, they won’t say: ‘This is corruption and they’re lying deliberately to scare the people.’ Furthermore, unwittingly, they have been playing the parts intended by those, including our own Government and their advisers, who control the global Covid narrative.
They judged correctly that we polite Brits wouldn’t accuse them of outright lying, even though they often do exactly that. Boris Johnson’s recent piece to camera, telling us that it was lockdown and not vaccination which reduced cases and deaths, is a case in point.
Yet it’s certain this isn’t true, and also certain he and his advisers know it isn’t true.
The government’s advisers are not fools. Some may be, but the upper echelons are very smart. They believe polite people won’t say ‘not only are you lying but you’re doing it in concert with other, non-democratic actors’, because that’s conspiracy theory stuff, right? Powerful people never use their influence to benefit their interests, do they? Hmm. The only thing that’s different is scale and the power their public positions give them. Other than that, they’re just another a bunch of grubby criminals, ripping off unsuspecting people.
Truth is our most powerful tool. And that truth is that we’re being lied to.
The truth also, however hard it is to believe it, is that there is unequivocal and clear evidence of planning and co-ordination. Not to face this fact is to have your head in the sand. Where it’s leading is easy to discern, once people are willing to lift their internal censoring and look objectively at the evidence.
First, though, the lies. It’s abundantly clear now that pretty much everything that the public has been told and continues to be told is between untrue and downright lies.
I offer as a shortlist that:
-PCR mass testing reasonably reliably distinguishes infected and infectious people from others;
-that masks reduce transmission of respiratory viruses;
-that transmission of infection in the absence of symptoms is an important contribution to epidemic spreading;
-that lockdowns as executed reduce hospitalisation and deaths;
-that no matter how small the remaining susceptible population and no matter that virtually no people who, if infected, might die remain unvaccinated, the position is perilous;
-that no pharmaceutical treatments are available;
-that variants are different enough to warrant border closures and require new vaccines;
-that the gene-based vaccines are safe and effective;
-that ‘vaccine passports’ will increase safety while having no material impacts on freedom of choice in a liberal democracy.
It is impossible to believe that intelligent, well-connected and well-briefed senior advisers to governments don’t know that almost all, if not all, of the above are simply not true.
It is not a matter of opinion in almost all cases. These statements, which have been explicitly stated and used in justification for the extraordinary interferences in the lives of citizens in democratic countries, are mostly demonstrably wrong, as defined by there being multiple well-conducted, peer-reviewed studies showing the contrary.
To continue with the pretence that there’s scientific uncertainty, and it’s therefore understandable that an adviser might offer nuanced advice, is wrong and misleading. This perhaps is where the mainstream media has been most culpable.
It is not reasonable to expect typical viewers and readers of speeches, articles and editorials – whether by scientist sceptics or by critical commentators – to appreciate that, when we point out that what’s happening doesn’t make sense, we mean ‘the executive is knowingly and deliberately harming the country and its citizens’. We are mostly not saying this, leaving it to the audience to sum up for themselves. But in my view the audience are reluctant to do this. They want to believe in government and perhaps above all they want a quiet life. To disbelieve is so much harder than to believe.
So in recent weeks I’ve made a clear decision no longer merely to point out what it is that governments and their advisers and spokespersons around the world are doing is wrong, scientifically unjustified and harmful, but to join the dots in an attempt to provide potential explanations of why they’re doing these things.
It is time for all Doubting Thomases to take a lead and state unambiguously that ‘government and its advisers are telling us things that are manifestly untrue and maintaining restrictive, damaging measures for which there’s no justification’. By not doing so they are playing into the hands of those who I firmly believe are engaged in a determined series of crimes against humanity.
Why do I say this? Simply because there is no benign interpretation of the acts of commission and omission consistently imposed upon us and no explanation of the statements which are flatly wrong other than an intention to deceive the population.
Looking around us now, we see that the prevalence of the virus in the community is effectively zero. Note that the authorities have never conceded and determined the operational false positive rate of PCR mass testing. Subtracting any reasonable estimate of oFPR and we observe no cases at all. This was true for months as indicated by the positive rate in lateral flow tests.
No variant of the virus differs by more than 0.3 per cent from the original sequence, and numerous academic immunologists have stated strongly that there is no possibility that booster/top-up/variant vaccines are required. Yet we get daily ‘fear porn’ on this topic. The European Parliament just voted through the basic outlines of a vaccine passport system. It’s a racing certainty that the UK will soon follow.
Mask regulations continue in force and many psychologists believe some people are so traumatised that they will continue to wear them indefinitely, even though they are useless.
The economy and currency may already be damaged beyond repair. Yet there’s another six weeks minimum until the last restrictions are scheduled to be lifted.
Almost no one is dying ‘with’ Covid-19 now, and the attribution methodology overestimates this anyway. Yet hospitals and primary health care remain far less accessible than they should be, inevitably resulting in causing or storing up avoidable non-Covid-19 deaths, to say nothing of the suffering and misery of the millions awaiting treatments for painful and worrying illnesses.
Most terrifyingly, it appears we will soon be required to possess VaxPass apps if we wish to continue to access our lives.
This system can run effectively only if everyone is vaccinated. This is a monstrous concept, because it is known that all four vaccines in use in Europe contain a fatal design flaw: they cause the fusogenic, pro coagulation spike protein to be expressed wherever the vaccine is taken up. In some people, especially those so young that they’re at no measurable risk of death if infected by the virus, vaccination results in their deaths from thromboembolic events. Permitting the inexpert population to walk into this trap is unconscionable: there will be thousands of further vaccine-induced deaths of young people.
I invite thoughtful people to ask that difficult question: ‘Why are they doing this?’
It is my deduction and conclusion that the only motivation that fits all the observations is the intention to ‘herd’ every citizen into a VaxPass system. This is a completely novel system. Never before have all individuals been represented in a single, interoperable database as a unique digital ID, accompanied by an editable health-related field. Whoever controls that database, and the algorithms which govern what it permits and denies, has literally totalitarian control of the entire population. There is no personal threshold crossing or transaction which doesn’t fall to those operating that system.
At the very least, the public deserves to be warned that this is coming. I do not expect conventional judicial processes to protect us in any way. Every institution has already failed the people of the UK.
Given that numerous government decisions (as instructed by Sage) have arguably already led to many avoidable deaths, I think it’s only reasonable to consider what the prize is that leads intelligent people to do the things they’ve done and continue to peddle.
The possible answers to this question are all bad. I cannot conceive of a situation where we will shortly be permitted to resume our normal lives. There is not the slightest hint of that in any case.
I have found it impossible to come up with a benign interpretation of the events. No one works as carefully and for so long as evidently has been done, across the world, only suddenly to stop. Why? I’ve asked hundreds of people and not a single one has (a) pointed out where my logic fails or (b) come up with a benign interpretation.
My own conviction is that the purpose is, at minimum, to establish a system of totalitarian control which will mean the extinguishing of liberal democracy.
It almost doesn’t matter what the next steps might be, but they could, for example, have been sold to numerous people as the only solution to ‘anthropogenic global warming’: the amount of resources we’ll be permitted to produce and consume will be set by some unseen controllers. It is possible they could go a step further than this, and see reducing population or depopulation as another route to solving the perceived problem of AGW.
Consider the elimination of the class of the inquiring journalist, the censorship of all mass media. The relentless smearing and exclusion of those who ask too many awkward questions. The astonishing waste of public money, which apparently the foreign exchange markets are unperturbed about. The destruction of SMEs which provide a third of all jobs and a substantial proportion of tax revenues. The relentless lying. The misinformation. The use of psychological operations to frighten and subdue. The utter disregard for those vaccinated with ‘vaccines’ that are way too unsafe for their role. The bending past illegality of the use of incorrect information to persuade pregnant women to get vaccinated. The numerous breaches of the Nuremberg Code, since no one is being explicitly told that these vaccines are experimental and so recipients are being unwittingly enrolled in an unprecedentedly large and unmonitored Phase 3 clinical trial. The announcement that, soon, our minor children are to be vaccinated.
Add in the ‘top-up vaccines’. They’re not vaccines. Whoever has been vaccinated has no need of further vaccination. Immunology is perhaps my strongest suit, so I am certain of this. Is it impossible that in those one billion vials which pharma has already told us its manufacturing, there is some gene sequence which will instigate one of a few dozen pathologies, with onset times ranging from near-immediate to a short number of years? I assure you, biotechnology has awesome power, and it can be used for good or ill.
I think I’ve made a decent case that what governments and their advisers have done easily amounts to conspiracy. The same ‘mistakes’ have been made everywhere. The same tricks and manipulation. Those who claim this is all coincidence are coincidence theorists.
I argue that unless this is pointed out to the public before any possible ‘vaccine passports’ system is established, we’ve all collectively failed to discharge our duties to be courageous, to take chances, to risk looking foolish: I am absolutely committed to continuing to speak out for as long as I have breath in my body.
Craig Murray Jailed for Eight Months for Contempt of Court Over Alex Salmond Trial
Sputnik – 11.05.2021
The High Court in Edinburgh has jailed former British diplomat-turned-whistleblower Craig Murray for eight months for contempt of court.
The charge related to Murray’s alleged “jigsaw” identification of the identities of protected witnesses in the trial of former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond.
But Murray will remain free for three weeks while his lawyers submit an appeal against his conviction.
Sentencing Murray on Tuesday, 10 May, Lady Leeona Dorrian said his actions “strike at the heart of the fair administration of justice” and created a risk of people alleging sexual offences might not want to come forward in future.
Murray believed the prosecution of Salmond was politically motivated and he blogged extensively throughout the trial.
Salmond faced a raft of sex allegations but was acquitted by a jury of all of the charges against him.
The former SNP leader later accused his successor, Nicola Sturgeon, of influencing the prosecution against him and earlier this year he set up his own party, Alba, which ran in the Scottish Parliament elections last week but only won two percent of the vote. Salmond failed to get elected as an MSP.
Murray was charged with three offences:
· Publication of material that creates a “substantial risk” of prejudicing the jury in violation of the Contempt of Court Act 1981;
· Reporting on the exclusion of two jurors in violation of a court order “preventing publication of the details of the issues raised by the Advocate Depute on 23 March 2020” as they related to the jurors’ removal; and
· “Jigsaw identification” of alleged victims who testified against Salmond.
The allegation of jigsaw identification argued that Murray’s articles, individually or in conjunction with other articles and material that can be obtained via Google and social media, could indirectly result in a member of the public determining the identity of alleged victims in the Salmond case.
The Government argued in favour of a wide interpretation of jigsaw identification, meaning that a journalist might violate the law if a person with intimate knowledge of the case could piece together the identity of a protected witnesses. Murray’s lawyers argued that such an interpretation would be unfair and would violate the Article 10 rights of journalists and the public.
See also: The World Darkens a Little More: I May Have to Spend Some Time as a Political Prisoner
Laurence Fox Threatens Met Police & Calls Them “Thugs”
By Richie Allen | May 10, 2021
In a series of extraordinary tweets, the actor turned politician Laurence Fox called the Metropolitan Police thugs and said that there would be trouble if they kept returning to his house for no reason.
Yesterday, police visited his home for the second time in two months. The officers said they had received reports of a party at the actor’s address. He says he was having dinner with his father.
Fox tweeted that the police presence had made his daughters cry and that officers should go and solve knife crime. The Reclaim Party leader was previously visited by Met Police officers in March ahead of the City Hall elections.
The officers warned him then, that his campaigning could be in breach of lockdown restrictions. Fox filmed the encounter and shared it online.
We really are here now. The police really are knocking on doors to count the number of people in your home, in your private residence. Maybe the Met police should rename themselves the stasi.
Even more worrying for me, is that there’s no outrage. Look at Twitter. Rather than pile-on the police for behaving like Nazi’s, users prefer to mock Fox and his family and call him a racist.
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, woke workers ensure that books with ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
By Frank Furedi | RT | May 10, 2021
The publishing industry is encouraging grass roots censorship and increasingly giving in to employees who demand that certain views should never be able to be expressed – especially those involving trans issues.
It looks like publishing is fast becoming a career choice for ambitious would-be censors. The most aspiring and aggressive wing of the grass-roots censorship movement is the lobby policing publications dealing with trans-related issues. Recently a group of individuals from across the publishing industry associated with this lobby wrote a letter to The Bookseller demanding the censoring of books that it deems unfavourable to its cause.
The main point of the letter is to claim that trans culture cannot be a subject of debate and that publishers should prevent opinions that run counter to it from being published. It states:
“Transphobia is still perfectly acceptable in the British book industry. Our industry excuses it, says that to view transgender individuals as having less than full human rights is OK and an opinion as valid as others. Our industry is still very comfortable about giving this form of prejudice a powerful platform. We need to step away from the paradigm that all opinions are equally valid.”
The demand to reject the paradigm that all opinions are valid is a roundabout way of saying that ‘invalid’ opinions can be legitimately censored and authors who hold such views should be cancelled and silenced.
Calls for censorship by freelance inquisitors working in publishing have also been busy in the United States. Employees at Simon & Schuster recently filed a petition insisting that the publisher sever its ties with writers associated with the Trump administration. The petition, signed by 216 employees, gained the support of over 3,500 external supporters, including well-known black writers such as the two-time winner of the National Book Award for Fiction, Jesmyn Ward.
When well-known writers join the queue of enthusiastic censors, it becomes evident that American literary culture is in trouble.
One of the targets of the Simon & Schuster inquisitors is a two-book deal that the company signed with former Vice-President Mike Pence. Since they believe that Pence’s opinions are not as valid as theirs, shutting down one of the leading voices of the Republican Party is a public service to society.
One of the most disturbing features of the inquisitorial movement in the publishing industry is the casual manner with which it seeks to corrupt the ideals of tolerance and free speech.
It is worth noting that the letter sent to The Bookseller is titled ‘The Paradox of Tolerance’. Since it rejects tolerance for views with which it disagrees – it states, “it is clearly not appropriate to say simply ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion’” – it should be titled ‘The Case for Intolerance’!
The hypocrisy of the supporters of censorship in publishing was highlighted in June 2020, by a group called Pride in Publishing. It wrote a circular, ‘Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not: An open letter to the industry from Pride in Publishing’. The aim of this letter was to support employees at Hachette Children’s Books who objected to working on JK Rowling’s latest book. Rowling – the author of the Harry Potter series – had in these employees’ opinion committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to accept the definition of sex and gender promoted by trans activists.
The letter stated: “Let’s clarify what free speech is and is not. Free speech does not entitle an author to a publishing contract. But it does protect the right of a worker to raise the alarm when they’re asked to participate in something that can cause them or someone else harm or trauma. Transphobic authors are not a protected group. Trans and non-binary people are.”
In British law, those using words that express hostility towards so-called protected groups with protected characteristics – such as race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender status and disability – can be charged with a hate crime. The implication of Pride in Publishing’s statement is that the right to exercise free speech is qualified in circumstances when it is directed at a protected group. This letter also highlights what has become one of the most distinctive features of 21st century linguistic policing – the diseasing of free speech.
In effect, the implication of the Pride in Publishing statement is that Rowling’s book represents a threat to the safety and mental health of the trans and non-binary people working at Hachette. It states that “employees should never have to work on content which is detrimental to their mental health or which causes them unnecessary turmoil.” This sentiment echoes the widely held view which insists that verbal and published communications are a potential hazard to people’s well-being and therefore need to be regulated to protect certain groups from offense, psychological trauma, and mental health problems.
This medicalisation of free speech, leading to its diseasing, has become one of the most effective arguments used for undermining freedom of expression.
Activists have, in effect, reinforced their call for censorship by claiming that the publication of invalid opinions by authors who offend them causes them psychological distress and trauma.
The publishing industry has recognised that its new generation of employees do not expect to work with material that upsets them. David Shelley, the CEO of Hachette, and Clare Alexander, a literary agent, recently told a Lords Committee that new recruits into the publishing industry must be warned that they may have to work on books by people they don’t agree with!
That publishers need to warn employees that they may have to work with authors whose views they dislike highlights the precarious position of free expression and tolerance in this industry.
Once upon a time, publishers were worried about the threat posed by state censorship and feared provoking the wrath of authoritarian censors from above. Today the publishing industry has become complicit in acquiescing to cancel culture, and the pressure to police what the public gets to read comes from below, from a new generation of intolerant employees.
Who needs a totalitarian state when zealous, fragile, and woke workers are determined to ensure that ‘invalid opinions’ never get an airing?
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.
Dr Mike Yeadon – “Please warn everyone not to go near top-up vaccines”
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 9, 2021
We spoke to Dr Mike Yeadon about his views on the experimental Covid-19 vaccines, the medicine regulators approving them and his fears for the future.
From the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.
“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.
“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.
“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.
“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.
“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.
“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?
“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else. Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.
“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”
The Israel Supreme Court decision last week cancelling COVID flight restrictions said: “In the future, any new restrictions on travel into or out of Israel need, in legal terms, a comprehensive, factual, data-based foundation.”
In a talk you gave four months ago, you said –
“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.
“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.
“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”
In other words, previous exposure to SARS – that is, a variant similar to SARS CoV-2 – bestowed SARS CoV-2 immunity.
The Israel government cites new variants to justify lockdowns, flight closures, restrictions, and Green Passport issuance. Given the Supreme Court verdict, do you think it may be possible to preempt future government measures with accurate information about variants, immunity, herd immunity, etc. that could be provided to the lawyers who will be challenging those future measures?
Yeadon: “What I outlined in relation to immunity to SARS is precisely what we’re seeing with SARS-CoV-2.The study is from one of the best labs in their field.” So, theoretically, people could test their T-cell immunity by measuring the responses of cells in a small sample of their blood. There are such tests, they are not “high throughput” and they are likely to cost a few hundred USD each on scale. But not thousands. The test I’m aware of is not yet commercially available, but research only in U.K.
“However, I expect the company could be induced to provide test kits “for research” on scale, subject to an agreement. If you were to arrange to test a few thousand non vaccinated Israelis, it may be a double edged sword. Based on other countries experiences, 30-50% of people had prior immunity & additionally around 25% have been infected & are now immune.
“Personally, I wouldn’t want to deal with the authorities on their own terms: that you’re suspected as a source of infection until proven otherwise. You shouldn’t need to be proving you’re not a health risk to others. Those without symptoms are never a health threat to others. And in any case, once those who are concerned about the virus are vaccinated, there is just no argument for anyone else needing to be vaccinated.”
My understanding of a “leaky vaccine” is that it only lessens symptoms in the vaccinated, but does not stop transmission; it therefore allows the spread of what then becomes a more deadly virus.
For example, in China they deliberately use leaky Avian Flu vaccines to quickly cull flocks of chicken, because the unvaccinated die within three days. In Marek’s Disease, from which they needed to save all the chickens, the only solution was to vaccinate 100% of the flock, because all unvaccinated were at high risk of death. So how a leaky vax is utilized is intention-driven, that is, it is possible that the intent can be to cause great harm to the unvaccinated.
Stronger strains usually would not propagate through a population because they kill the host too rapidly, but if the vaccinated experience only less-serious disease, then they spread these strains to the unvaccinated who contract serious disease and die.
Do you agree with this assessment? Furthermore, do you agree that if the unvaccinated become the susceptible ones, the only way forward is HCQ prophylaxis for those who haven’t already had COVID-19?
Would the Zelenko Protocol work against these stronger strains if this is the case? And if many already have the aforementioned previous “17-year SARS immunity”, would that then not protect from any super-variant?
“I think the Gerrt Vanden Bossche story is highly suspect. There is no evidence at all that vaccination is leading or will lead to ‘dangerous variants’. I am worried that it’s some kind of trick.
“As a general rule, variants form very often, routinely, and tend to become less dangerous & more infectious over time, as it comes into equilibrium with its human host. Variants generally don’t become more dangerous.
“No variant differs from the original sequence by more than 0.3%. In other words, all variants are at least 99.7% identical to the Wuhan sequence.
“It’s a fiction, and an evil one at that, that variants are likely to “escape immunity.”
“Not only is it intrinsically unlikely – because this degree of similarity of variants means zero chance that an immune person (whether from natural infection or from vaccination) will be made ill by a variant – but it’s empirically supported by high-quality research.
“The research I refer to shows that people recovering from infection or who have been vaccinated ALL have a wide range of immune cells which recognize ALL the variants.
“This paper shows WHY the extensive molecular recognition by the immune system makes the tiny changes in variants irrelevant.
“I cannot say strongly enough: The stories around variants and need for top up vaccines are FALSE. I am concerned there is a very malign reason behind all this. It is certainly not backed by the best ways to look at immunity. The claims always lack substance when examined, and utilize various tricks, like manipulating conditions for testing the effectiveness of antibodies. Antibodies are probably rather unimportant in host protection against this virus. There have been a few ‘natural experiments’, people who unfortunately cannot make antibodies, yet are able quite successfully to repel this virus. They definitely are better off with antibodies than without. I mention these rare patients because they show that antibodies are not essential to host immunity, so some contrived test in a lab of antibodies and engineered variant viruses do NOT justify need for top up vaccines.
“The only people who might remain vulnerable and need prophylaxis or treatment are those who are elderly and/or ill and do not wish to receive a vaccine (as is their right).
“The good news is that there are multiple choices available: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, budesonide (inhaled steroid used in asthmatics), and of course oral Vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin etc. These reduce the severity to such an extent that this virus did not need to become a public health crisis.”
Do you feel the MHRA does a good job regulating ‘big pharma’? In what ways does ‘big pharma’ get around the regulator? Do you feel they did so for the mRNA jab?
“Until recently, I had high regard for global medicines regulators. When I was in Pfizer, and later CEO of a biotech I founded (Ziarco, later acquired by Novartis), we interacted respectfully with FDA, EMA, and the MHRA.
Always good quality interactions.
“Recently, I noticed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) had made a grant to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)! Can that ever be appropriate? They’re funded by public money. They should never accept money from a private body.
“So here is an example where the U.K. regulator has a conflict of interest.” The European Medicines Agency failed to require certain things as disclosed in the ‘hack’ of their files while reviewing the Pfizer vaccine.
“You can find examples on Reiner Fuellmich’s “Corona Committee” online.
“So I no longer believe the regulators are capable of protecting us. ‘Approval’ is therefore meaningless.
“Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and I petitioned the EMA Dec 1, 2020 on the genetic vaccines. They ignored us.
“Recently, we wrote privately to them, warning of blood clots, they ignored us. When we went public with our letter, we were completely censored. Days later, more than ten countries paused use of a vaccine citing blood clots.
“I think the big money of pharma plus cash from BMGF creates the environment where saying no just isn’t an option for the regulator.
“I must return to the issue of ‘top up vaccines’ (booster shots) and it is this whole narrative which I fear will he exploited and used to gain unparalleled power over us.
“PLEASE warn every person not to go near top up vaccines. There is absolutely no need to them. As there’s no need for them, yet they’re being made in pharma, and regulators have stood aside (no safety testing), I can only deduce they will be used for nefarious purposes.
“For example, if someone wished to harm or kill a significant proportion of the worlds population over the next few years, the systems being put in place right now will enable it.
“It’s my considered view that it is entirely possible that this will be used for massive-scale depopulation.”
Leaked documents prove UK funded anti-Damascus groups: Assad’s top aide
Press TV – May 9, 2021
A senior aide to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has accused the United Kingdom of funding anti-Damascus groups to stoke further unrest in the Arab country and said Western states were exerting pressure on Syrian officials to dissent from the government.
Bouthaina Shaaban, Assad’s political and media adviser, made the remarks in a video conference organized by the German Schiller Institute on Saturday, entitled “The Moral Collapse of the Trans-Atlantic World Cries Out for a New Paradigm,” Syria’s official news agency SANA reported.
Shaaban said Syria has been waging a “double-edged” war over the past decade, one on the ground against terrorists wreaking havoc in the country and the other against a Western-backed drive for inciting dissent within government ranks.
“All that happened in Syria of destruction, death, and displacement, were because of Western intelligence institutions which, in cooperation with Turkey, trained thousands of terrorists to achieve a single goal which is destroying Syria,” the presidential aide said, adding that the West was dealing with Syria as if it were still under their colonization, ignoring its deep-rooted history and values.
Shaaban also said leaked British documents revealed that the United Kingdom “officially funded” groups of Syrian dissidents who called themselves “witnesses” to launch street movements and provide news for Western media outlets.
Assad’s political and media adviser told the video conference that, “Western governments were pressing Syrian officials to dissent and bribing some of them with money to join those against the Syrian government, assuring them the political system is going to fall and collapse.”
Syrian government troops and their allies have managed to retake some 80 percent of the war-ravaged Arab country’s territory from the Takfiri terrorists.
The Syrian army is fighting to drive out the remaining militants, but the presence of US and European forces in addition to Turkish troops has slowed down its advances.
The United States has also imposed crippling sanctions on Damascus. The Syrian government has repeatedly denounced Washington’s unilateral sanctions as “crimes against humanity,” saying the Western sponsors of terrorism must pay the price for their atrocities against the Syrian nation.
Halt Vaccine Passports! It’s illegal, medical apartheid
By Dr Mike Yeadon | OffGuardian | May 7, 2021
It is very important that people understand what is happening here. The intention is to introduce vaccine passports everywhere. But this is a disguise. It’s a world’s first digital common-format, globally-interoperable ID system with an editable health flag (vaccinated Y or N).
It makes no one safer. If you’re vaccinated, you’re protected & are not made safer by knowing others immune status.
As in Israel, you will be compelled to present a valid VaxPass in order to access defined facilities or access services. No VaxPass, you’re denied.
This system only needs 50%+ of the adult population to start up because of its huge, coercive power on the unvaccinated.
It’s illegal, medical apartheid.
If they succeed, it won’t help you to refuse. They’ll move on, leaving that minority behind.
A VaxPass System like this will give to those controlling the database & it’s algorithms TOTALITARIAN TYRANNY over us all.
The ONLY way to stop this biosecurity nightmare is to NOT GET VACCINATED FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS!!!
I fear that, if our adversaries gain this absolute control, they will use it to harm the population. There’s no limit to the evil which will flow from this strategic goal.
DO NOT ALLOW THIS SYSTEM TO START UP, because it’s unstoppable afterwards.
One example: your VaxPass pings, instructing you to attend for your 3rd or 4th or 5th booster or variant vaccine. If you don’t, your VaxPass will expire & you’ll become an out-person, unable to access your own life.
How much choice do you have?
It’s none. You are controlled. Forever.
PLEASE share this widely, on every platform you use.
Thank you,
Dr Mike Yeadon
Government Documents reveal how Brits have been manipulated into complying with Medical Tyranny
THE DAILY EXPOSE • MAY 6, 2021
The ordinary hard working people of the United Kingdom have been played. They have been manipulated and coerced into complying with medical fascism, thanks to the psychological warfare unleashed by the UK Government and its Scientific advisors every waking hour since March 2020.
The authority’s weapons have included the television, the radio, the newspapers. But their most important weapon in ensuring the general public have complied with dictatorial tyranny and offered themselves up as lab rats in the largest experiment to ever be conducted in human history, is a weapon that everyone reading this will know personally. Because that weapon has been you.
To understand just how the authorities have managed to manipulate and coerce the British people into complying with medical fascism we must go back to March 2020. It was at this point that Boris Johnson had one simple instruction for the British people, that instruction being that “you must stay at home”. Stay at home in order to protect the NHS and save lives. This was sold to the British people by informing them that the authorities needed just “three weeks to flatten the curve”. But those three weeks turned into six weeks. Then those six weeks turned into twelve weeks. Then those twelve weeks turned into twelve months, and still to this day the freedoms that were taken for granted prior to March 2020 do not seem within reach.
But how on earth have they managed to get away with it? Well we only need to delve into government documents which are readily available to the public, if they know how to find them. The first document we discovered is titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ and was published on the 22nd March 2020, one day prior to the announcement that the British people “must stay at home”.
This is one of the problems they felt they has in persuading people to social distance –
A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate.
They were quite right, and are still quite right to be reassured by the low death rate, as statistics show that just 0.2% of those who develop the alleged Covid-19 disease tragically die. And even then the vast majority who do die are over the age of 85 and also have underlying conditions.
But that wouldn’t help to create the illusion of a problem if they couldn’t get people to social distance so here’s what the behavioural insight team advised the UK Government to do in response to this problem –
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.
‘Perceived’ is probably the most key word within that advice given to the UK Government on how to manipulate the British people. As this entire charade has been entirely about perception. If there was any level of personal threat then there would be no need to use hard hitting emotional messaging as people would already genuinely feel threatened. If there was truly something for the British people to be wary of then it would not need a mass media advertising campaign to make them aware of it.
But here’s an example of some of the ‘hard hitting emotional messaging’ used to manipulate the British people into complying with medical fascism –
“Don’t kill granny with the virus” warns Matt Hancock who blames spike in Covid cases on middle-class youth. This is just one example of many that have been used to increase the perceived level of personal threat.
But propaganda messages via the media weren’t enough on their own so that’s where the most vital weapon up the authorities sleeve came in – you. The ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ document has within it a section titled ‘Coercion’. No we’re not making it up, and this was one of the points made within that section –
Social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour, (therefore) consideration should be given to the use of social disapproval.
Those who fell for the propaganda and lies broadcast on every mainstream TV channel and radio station, and published in every mainstream newspaper have been the glue that has kept the destruction of life as we knew it together. Because they have policed the introduction of medical fascism for the authorities, and they don’t even realise that they have and are being used.
The document lists every single tactic used to ensure the British people complied with the loss of their rights and freedoms and these have included –
- Using media to increase the sense of personal threat
- Using media to increase the sense of responsibility to others
- Using and promoting social approval for desired behaviors
- Using social disapproval for those who do not comply
The document explains in full how they have managed to manipulate and coerce the British public into complying with medical fascism using psychological warfare. But how exactly are authorities going to keep up this charade now that the “miraculous” experimental vaccines are being rolled out across the country? How are they going to ensure the British people continue to comply with medical fascism now that the most vulnerable to this alleged disease have been vaccinated?
Well another document found on the Government website helps us to find the answer to that. The document is titled ‘Behavioural and social considerations when reducing restrictions’ and was released on the 10th February 2021. A document which essentially confirms the writing is on the wall for a return to normality and that the introduction of vaccine passports (freedom passes) is inevitable.
One of the points made in the document describes the issues that may arise as some interventions are lifted. With complications on messaging due to “differences across tiers” and “immunity or vaccination certificates providing exemptions” for those who are vaccinated to carry out or take part in certain activities.
Tiers? But Boris Johnson said we were going back to normal on the 21st June, why on earth would we need tiers? Because he’s a liar.
Another line in the document explains that another problem for the authorities in getting the British public to continue to comply with medical fascism is that “as perceptions of immunity grow, messaging may need to explain why continued adherence to specific protective measures is important”.
Why exactly will the British people need to continue to adhere to restrictions if they now have a miraculous experimental vaccine that will “save” them from Covid-19? After all the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock is constantly reminding us that “vaccination is our route back to normal”.
Well maybe the next part of the document can explain why, and it’s a card they have kept up their sleeve and are yet to really play, but we all know it is coming.
he document states that “17% of adults expect life to return to normal in six months or less. Modelling from SPI-M suggests this is optimistic. Additionally, the challenge of new variants may call for sudden, strict reimposition of measures”.
If you thought life was going back to normal on the 21st June then think again, it’s not in the script, quite the opposite is going to happen and we’ve just shown you the evidence in black and white.
A Third of All Recent ‘Covid Deaths’ in England and Wales Not Caused by Coronavirus
21st Century Wire | May 6, 2021
After a year of incessant fearmongering, fraudulent PCR testing and generally inflating its Covid numbers, new data analysis reveals how the government’s rampant statistical fraud still continues unabated, as increasing numbers of people whose underlying cause of death was not due coronavirus – are still being included in the government’s hallowed ‘death count.’
Despite this exposure, the mainstream media and government officials seem unwilling to acknowledge how this fundamental deception has been used as the underlying basis for nearly every single ‘public health’ measure – coming at an incalculable cost for those countries and societies placed under the yoke of so-called ‘virus mitigation’ policies.
The inflated Covid death numbers are then used by the government and media as a ‘moral trigger’ to impose rolling lockdowns, as well as other repressive and needless policies such as mask mandates, business and school closures, deregulated emergency vaccine roll-outs, and arbitrary non-science-based “social distancing” rules.
The UK Telegraph reports…
Nearly one third of recently registered Covid deaths in England and Wales are people who died primarily from other causes, the latest figures show.
Weekly death data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that, for nearly 33 per cent of people included in the overall coronavirus death figures, Covid was not an underlying cause of death but was merely mentioned on the death certificate.
The number of people who are not principally dying from Covid but are still being included in the official figures has been creeping up steadily as the pandemic has declined.
It had been running at around 10 per cent for most of the crisis but had risen to nearly a quarter by mid-April and is continuing to increase.
In the latest data, published on Wednesday, which records death registrations in the week ending April 23, some 260 deaths from Covid were recorded in England and Wales, but only 67.7 per cent (176) of those had the virus as an underlying cause.
Featured Video
Seyed Marandi: Trump lost the Iran war – Must sell it as victory
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Balfour Declaration – A Century of Jewish Power
By Gilad Atzmon | May 17, 2017
This year, Palestinians and their supporters mark the 100th anniversary of The Balfour Declaration, a written statement from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in favour of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.
For Palestinians, The Balfour Declaration was the beginning of their plight: a century of ethnic cleansing at the hands of European newcomers who claim Palestine as their historic home. Yet, for some reason, supporters of the Palestinians are desperate to suppress discussion of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration – how and why did it come about? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Mission unaccomplished – Part I: America failed to achieve every war objective against Iran
- Iranian Victory- Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran
- IRGC Navy rejects new Strait of Hormuz shipping routes
- Seyed M. Marandi: Trump Lost the Iran War – Must Sell It as a Victory
- Iran, Saudi FMs hold phone talks as Persian Gulf states rethink US ties
- The Illusions of Western Virtue: Ursula von der Leyen and Europe’s Moral Bankruptcy
- AIPAC-backed candidates lose New York primaries as voters reject pro-genocide lobby
- The West’s Post-Soviet ‘Democracy’ Playbook
- UK suppressed intel on Sudan genocide to protect UAE ties: Report
- Starmer’s exit exposes dirty secret: UK can’t afford Ukraine War
- If Americans Knew
- Gaza faces Israel-imposed “silent famine”; cost of Israel’s wars since Oct. 7 $200B+ – Daily Update
- Israel’s Attacks on Gaza’s Children (Photos)
- ‘His only crime is that he is a Palestinian doctor’: 2 Articles
- ‘Killed pursuing her dream’: Gaza girl on her way to school dies in Israeli drone strike
- Unbelievable pressure on Gaza from Israel, “Board of Peace” – Daily Update
- UN: Israel Continues to Commit Genocide and Other Atrocity Crimes by Deliberately Targeting Palestinian Children
- Bari Weiss, Free-Speech Fraud & Zionism Promoter, Would Rather Deport Than Debate
- ‘Doctor of the Poor’: Israeli Occupation Arrests Prominent Palestinian Physician
- Search for Your Church (and see if it has been targeted by the Israeli gov’t)
- Mark Levin Flying to Israel as Netanyahu Reportedly Seeks to ‘Leverage’ Levin to Trash Trump’s Iran Deal
- No Tricks Zone
- 3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
- THE TRANSCEIVER PARADOX: Why Organoid Intelligence (OI) Could Become Our Ultimate Alien Predator
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
Aletho News 