The fact that our Primeminister, Boris Johnson, a middle-aged, overweight and generally unfit individual contracted COVID and recovered was only news when it looked like he would die. Indeed, empirically, the disease has now been shown to be less dangerous for “children” (medically defined as U21s) than a winter flu. Out of 70000 university students in the US who tested positive for COVID-19, zero — yes, zero — have died according to the most recent data available from the CDC. Healthy adults up to 35 years old are more likely to die in a road-traffic accident according to a comprehensive study by Levin et al, an international group of epidemiologists. A summary chart from their analysis of data is shown here:
Now, what can you also tell from this data? Until you are 85+, COVID is no more dangerous for you than the aggregate of other respiratory diseases (IFR for 2017 was 11.6%, see chart below).
Until you are 85+, COVID is no more dangerous for you than the aggregate of other endemic respiratory diseases.
A Disease So Deadly, You Have To Be Tested To Know You Have It
We already known that the major risk group are elderly with health conditions or a weak disposition. It is also empirically confirmed that around 35% of those infected (regardless of age) are actually asymptomatic — consider the aphorism, “COVID-19 novel coronavirus, a disease so deadly you have to be tested to know you have it”. COVID-19 has become just another flu-like disease we can live with without isolation, lockdowns and the removal of liberty; sometimes serious but not normally life-threatening, particularly if treated early.
Although it is a great headline that “1 million have died worldwide of COVID-19”, this is really not the global pandemic we should be paying attention to if saving lives is the issue. This is not a dismissal of COVID-19 but have a look at the chart below to put it into context:
That is, 56 million people died (these stats are for 2017, 59 million died in 2019) and we also have to understand that there is the potential for an enormous overlap between COVID deaths and a range of other conditions, i.e. the first disease someone contracts when they are in a weakened state will kill them.
Other than the utter imprecise and unscientific nature of these statements that were used to justify a lockdown, we see that COVID did not “cause” their deaths because of it being a particularly nasty disease. The poor health of the person was the cause of their death — as witnessed by the unfit Boris Johnson now seen getting himself fit as the best defence against the disease, as argued by another senior medical practitioner from a Yale institute early on in the “pandemic”.
A Course in How To Fiddle Data
To demonstrate just how dishonest Professor Ferguson’s “500000 dead in the UK, millions in the US” scenario was, it has been removed from the BBC archive though the article reference is still there and replaced with a sanitised argument — no 500000 dead. Thankfully, I can prove my point because I have an archive of the original document from the BBC which I have uploaded here and there are still readily ‘googleable’ discussion boards that are full of chatter about this “500000” figure.
This original article was actually a well-researched article and unintentionally gives quite a lot of the game away as to the misrepresentation by the scientists of the data even as they are trying to present it as a justification for “lockdown”:
a. The modelling shows it is the over 60s for who the risk gets significantly higher.
b. The reporter notes that the “500000” figure just happens to match the number of people who would die anyway in a particular year in the UK.
A second “fiddling” of the data was with the comparison with the flu figures — the article shows the figure of “8000” was quoted for flu deaths but then explains how the flu figure is not directly comparable with the COVID figures. The comparable figure for flu-related deaths show that “respiratory related deaths”, i.e. broadly flu-related amount to the third largest cause of world death, nearly 6 million worldwide (around 12%) in 2017 (see the chart above). This amounts to the following propositions:
If you were likely to die in the next year because of poor health or your great age, i.e. you are one of the 500000 slotted to die anyway, you may well die of COVID if you catch it.
Do not just skip over this, read the BBC article — Sir Patrick Vallance, the UKs chief scientific adviser, made it explicitly clear that this figure was not on top of the normal deaths. Professor Ferguson started with 500000, halved it to 250000 using a “Sweden-like” model and got down to 20000 with a full lockdown and tagged for fallacious comparison with this figure, 8000 flu deaths. What is a politician going to choose when you frame the argument in those terms?
That was why Boris backtracked from his initial interest in the Swedish model which was probably more in line with his libertarian instincts.
Professor Ferguson started with 500000, halved it to 250000 using a “Sweden-like” model and got down to 20000 with a full lockdown and tagged for fallacious comparison with this figure, 8000 flu deaths. What is a politician going to choose when you frame the argument in those terms?
This is an outrageous sleight of hand by the “scientific experts” to justify a totalitarian lockdown of the people and what was worse was that with the exception of a couple of muted responses to the figures and a solitary study criticising the decision to close schools, his academic peers let him get away with it. The duplicitous nature of this was seen in that Professor Ferguson was able to move from “some [probably very small] overlap” in this article to “at least two thirds” six weeks after lockdown had been executed.
The Health Service Lie
This same article makes it clear that the strategy was not really about “saving lives” but rather that “the logic for the lockdown to stop the health service being overwhelmed”. This was proved to be nothing but a bald-faced lie, the so-called “emergency facilities” constructed amid great fanfare and solemnity, opened by our very own Royal Family to give us struggling Brits a psychological boost (our Royals are often rolled out in times of national crisis if a Royal Family scandal is not causing one), laid empty, virtually un-used without even mattresses on the beds in their publicity photos.
The strategy was not really about “saving lives” but rather that “the logic for the lockdown to stop the health service being overwhelmed”.
This was because the cancellation of the normal functions of the entire health service apart from COVID-related activities had meant there was plenty of capacity and indeed, a headline appeared in the major national newspaper of probably 300000 deaths resulting from the unavailability of routine health services. Just today I saw a headline in one of our tabloids of a major spike in cardiac deaths because of the lack of primary care. That should not surprise us for as our chart above showed us, cardiovascular deaths are far more of an “epidemic” than COVID. That is, far more are now being killed because of the lack of health care than through COVID.
Rainbows, “Thank you, NHS!”, moving and inspiring tales of retired doctors and nurses coming back to “help” and our clattering pots on a Thursday evening were designed by government behavioural psychologists to mask the virtual suspension of primary care were a hollow deification of a dysfunctional institution idolised by us British. We were celebrating something that was no longer functional, doctors’ surgeries were closed, and A&E was packed out with people needing primary, not secondary care. It has been through repeated (I think 3 or 4) major reorganisations in the last 4 decades simply because it is totally unaffordable — no government has the resources to fund healthcare for the entire population. I worked in it for a number of years and it was an institution that moves from financial crisis to financial crisis (which was why I was there to help dig an entire region out of a hole). It is a legacy of the post-WWII European socialist idea that tells us the “government will care for us from the cradle to the grave” and “fix us” if something goes wrong.
Take Care of Yourself
This is the same behavioural idea that is being pedalled during this era of COVID reconstruction, we are trading our liberty and freedom for “safety and protection” provided by our government. Yet, this is just a demonstrably false set of premises as the Yale physician taught us when he said “there is a greater epidemic that coronavirus” that is killing far more people and that is unfit people who refuse to take responsibility for their health just by eating sensibly and exercising responsibly. It is like getting drunk every night and demanding the government provide you with replacement livers so you can carry on drinking. It is just an empirical fact that the best defence against COVID and any other disease or virus is to get yourself fit and healthy, it improves your resilience and ability to fight off infection. Period.
It is like getting drunk every night and demanding the government provide you with replacement livers.
Conflating Mortality and Infection
We can put the emphasis on this by considering one of the first data-driven reflective studies in the country worst hit in Europe. A group of Italian academics proposed that it was questionable whether their country’s total lockdown had saved any lives as the profile of the mortality showed endemic health issues within the population. A group of Israeli academics followed suit with similar conclusions. This is compounded in that mortality is often conflated by the media with “infections”. The news over the last week has been reporting the daily spikes in infections as lockdown was eased and why we now need to go back into lockdown to reduce it. However, mortality is a tiny fraction of what it was at the “height” of the pandemic.
This is just fallacious behavioural science designed to pull the wool over people’s eyes and to keep them controlled and compliant. Obviously, someone cannot die of COVID-19 unless they are infected with COVID-19 but there the simplicity of profiling mortality ends. Even with the grossest overworking of mortality as done by bodies like the WHO (who have a vested pecuniary interest in inflating them), the analysis still admits that over 80% of those infected have already recovered after experiencing a mild illness. Mortality in many countries with healthy populations, e.g. Korea and Japan was barely 0.1–0.2%. Africa, because of the use of HCQ as an anti-malarial which is also effective against COVID, still has a negligible mortality from COVID-19 despite widespread infection. Only where there were major endemic health issues within a population or a population with a vulnerable demographic, e.g. ex-patriate retired communities in Italy and Spain, was the mortality around 10%.
It is easy to make “mortality” data seem far worse (and thus the disease appear far more deadly) than it actually is if you simply quote COVID deaths with no real qualification (e.g. demographic or existing co-morbidities) like the BBC have done very recently here. It is rhetoric on their part, peddling a corrupt government normal and yet, even this same BBC article adds the throwaway line, “12% of deaths this year were COVID deaths” — excuse me, that means 88% are dying of something else and we should not be majoring on COVID to the detriment of other endemic conditions.
Look at that mortality chart again, as it is becoming apparent that routine treatments were cancelled for a whole range of treatable conditions in the upper band of the deadliest of the diseases and people are now dying prematurely — paradoxically some of these are probably being classified as “COVID-related” deaths because you could not get treatment because of the risks of contracting COVID and that helps to justify allowing these people to carry on dying. All this helps to inflate COVID death figures and justify totalitarian political actions. Yet, consider “diet-related” deaths, these barely exceed 1% but “50% of all premature death can be traced to effects of diet”. That is, we have a “fatality rate” of 50%. If lockdown is warranted by mortality rate, we should be banned from eating all sorts of things. To put it succinctly:
“Admittedly, coronavirus kills quickly when it kills, and diet tends to kill more slowly. This matters, but less than first meets the eye. Dying prematurely and abruptly is bad, but dying prematurely after a long chronic disease — losing life from years before losing years from life — is no bargain either.”
So, this is the same objection that was made when we were looking at Professor Ferguson’s abuse of data. If we are just postponing someone’s death from the first infection or disease they catch, we are doing just that and we are certainly not “preventing death”, merely postponing it by a few months. There can be no moral warrant on that basis to strip from citizens that which defines their communal interaction, right to conduct business and the right to bury their dead.
It also highlights the “quality of life” issue which is surely of interest to philosophers and ethicists. My choice may be to live with risks according to how I understand the risk; if the option is to compromise my ability to retire comfortably and to make me dependent on the State, I personally would choose the risk. Our Primeminister is now getting himself physically fit, understanding this is the single most effective measure at reducing the risk from not just Coronavirus but the next synthetic pathogen.
No One Ever Recovers
The article then elucidates in the clearest possible way the important distinction between infection rates and mortality rate I argued for above. This could not have been demonstrated more clearly than what can only be called a scandal of the highest order in the reporting of the COVID statistics for England that provided the on-going moral justification for the totalitarian lockdown:
“Prof Carl Heneghan from University of Oxford, who spotted the issue with the data, told the BBC there was “huge variation” in the numbers of daily deaths reported in England by PHE.
While NHS England currently reports 30–35 deaths per day, Public Health England (PHE) data often shows double that or more, he said.
The reason is that anyone who has tested positive for coronavirus but then died at a later date of another cause would still be included in PHE’s Covid-19 death figures.
“By this PHE definition, no one with Covid in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness,” Prof Heneghan says.”
In any other universe and at any other time, this would have been a major scandal. The Health Minister ordered an “urgent enquiry” apparently so urgent it has never been mentioned again. It demonstrated at best serious negligence on the part of those collating the statistics and at worst, a conspiracy to misrepresent the deathrate as part of the process of establishing a fear-filled and compliant population.
A Case Study for the Sociology of Crooked Medicine
The professional concern over long term psychological effects was identified extremely early during the lockdown period with social contact and interaction understood as essential for human well-being and in particular child development. To deny the elderly the presence of family during palliative care and to allow them to die alone seems inhuman. The side-effects of economic disruption to thousands and thousands of SMEs with its detrimental effects on standards of living, social cohesion and health are all factors that should be considered that invalidate the unscientific and totalitarian nature of attempting to manage the virus using the lockdown and social distancing. Imagine a “fantasy moment” when people consider the mortality rate rather than the infection rate. Imagine an emphasis on how many have recovered with no side effects.
Medical evidence championed by some anti-lockdown doctors now suggests that isolation and lockdown will frustrate the build-up of immunity within the population and that to state infection rate would need to be 60–70% before any kind of herd immunity was released was incorrect. It is more likely to be between 10–20%. This is suggested as the reason why even in densely populated urban areas the mortality rate peaked at 10–20% and it must be noted, this was amongst relatively unhealthy Westerners. Mortality rates in S. Korea and Japan, barely reached 0.2%. It has already been demonstrated that there are substantial death-rates year by year of medical conditions that will be here long after COVID-19 immunity is established within the population. One leading Harvard epidemiologist has stated that the management of the virus will be a case study for the sociology of medicine in demonstrating how non-scientific, political factors dominated the management of the process.
Straining the COVID fly and the Swedish Apocalypse
This straining of the COVID “fly” whilst swallowing the 88% of people who died of something other than COVID in the UK, is utter perversity. There are now dissenting voices finally becoming prepared to break the wall of silence imposed on academia, the scientific community, the medical profession and the complicit media. The media, in a way unprecedented, were censoring dissenting voices, regardless of their political seniority or their medical qualifications. We see the operation of an enormous global effort to manage the information to ensure a narrative is maintained that allows the global reconstruction to continue. However, with a glimmer of hope, the Great Barrington Declaration has managed to be published and to circumvent this “new normal” of censorship by government, media and social media simply because of the undeniable seniority of those who have created and indeed signed, the declaration.
Countries that did not lockdown did not become post-apocalyptic wastelands and indeed, the strongest European economy at the moment is Sweden which resisted lockdown, preferring a managed approach. Not everything went right in Sweden, the chief epidemiologist freely admits more shielding of those particularly at risk was needed, but their strategy was probably the most successful in Europe as again confirmed in the Levin analysis. They saw an enormous peak in infection, but this has meant a stabilisation of the infection rates in a way that is impossible in lockdown countries. The chief epidemiologist of Sweden is being proved right about the lockdown countries, he said there cannot be an “exit strategy” from lockdown because as soon as you loosen off lockdown the infection will start spreading again as with what we are seeing in many lockdowns countries, including my own, now talking about a “Second Coming” and reintroducing lockdown measures.
Sweden rather promoted an “opt in” style where “lockdown behaviour” [was] encouraged by the government. In other words, the Swedish government, maintained a respect for the Western democratic tradition where power and legitimacy rests with the citizen, rather than the WHO approved model of totalitarian communist lockdowns.
Sweden rather promoted an “opt in” style where “lockdown behaviour” such as minimising non-essential contact, working at home, distance learning rather than face to face tuition were encouraged by the government. In other words, the Swedish government, maintained a respect for the Western democratic tradition where power and legitimacy rests with the citizen, rather than the WHO approved model of totalitarian communist lockdowns.
Although some, including some Swedish academics, were critical of this approach, their criticisms through the wealth of their impressive academic credentials seems primarily polemical and at odds with the facts. Although Sweden was initially criticised, the mortality rate peaked at just over 6%, around half of the UK rate and its death rate has dramatically dropped (see second graph showing data to early September):
“Sweden’s death toll of 5,646, when compared relative to population size, has far outstripped those of its Nordic neighbours, although it remains lower than in some European countries that locked down, such as Britain and Spain.”
Additionally, the assertion in the same article that:
“There are no indications that the Swedish economy has fared better than in many other countries. At the moment, we have set an example for the rest of the world on how not to deal with a deadly infectious disease.”
This is just flat contradicted by the data where the Swedish economy, which relies heavily on exports, still suffered the smallest contraction in Europe (see the graph following) but we can agree with the academics that:
“Sweden can be used as a…control group and answer the question of how efficient the voluntary distancing and loose measures in Sweden are compared with lockdowns, aggressive testing, tracing and the use of masks”
The academic scientists here have put the dilemma well and guess what, Sweden has done really well. The use of “lockdowns, aggressive testing, tracing and the use of masks” has to be contrasted with personal freedom to accept the risk and the right of protection of coercion of the individual citizen from the State, to support themselves independently from the State and to weigh the risks on the basis of clear scientific advice presented in a way that is least likely to create emotional and irrational reactions. As the Swedish chief epidemiologist understands, the problem is coming out of the lockdown without a general immunity within the population for as soon as you do, the virus begins to “spike”. It is also clear that lockdowns in the worst affected areas are suffering from this “spiking” as is currently in the UK with our local lockdowns, reversing of easing restrictions and the like. It is also well understood from the experience of previous pandemics that a “second hump” of infections with a much smaller mortality rate is to be expected.
The problem we can identify is that of strategy and what the lockdowns were meant to achieve. If an “interruption to transmission”, sometimes called “flattening the curve” was the aim, then we can call it a “success” but at the cost of the decimation of the economic and social life of the nations. It then becomes a monumental failure. We might claim moral warrant for our totalitarianism on a pragmatic basis if this was more “serious” than Spanish flu, SARS-1 or Ebola. In its early day “spikes” it was more serious, for as a new virus, this is to be expected as it is far more transmissible and infectious but that does not correlate with increased on-going mortality.
In summary, the Swedish model should cause us to pause, they maintained the freedom of their citizens, identified weaknesses in the firewalling of vulnerable groups and can transition out of a democratic lockdown with relative smoothness. Though never a publicly stated aim of his strategy, his strategy ensured the “herd immunity” was reached amongst the general population and the stated aim of managing the infection rate to ensure the health services were not overloaded was also effective.
Straining the COVID fly and Swallowing the Starvation Camel
It is no secret that the economic effects of the “lockdown” strategy were serious, but it was justified because lives were “being saved”. We crossed the “grim milestone” of 1 million deaths — however, consider the collateral damage of the economics of the decision made. Around 130 million are now at real risk of starvation in nations that relied on trade with the West in a “hand to mouth” fashion, typically textile and clothing factories in countries like Bangladesh. This reverses the reduction in world poverty made in the previous generation. Lockdown was never about saving lives; it was about wrecking capitalism so that socialism can be substituted in its place and the preventing of the humiliation of dysfunctional healthcare systems.
The Asymptomatic Myth — Track and Trace
I was unnerved going into a coffee shop whilst waiting for a car repair to be refused service until I “checked in” by scanning a code for the NHS ‘Track and Trace’ app. I still declined but did the paper equivalent. The idea behind ‘track and trace’ apparently was that because over 30% of people with COVID-19 do not know they have it because they are unaffected by it, they could still spread it, i.e. the alleged transmission was asymptomatic. Track and Trace was supposed to record all contacts and if someone was infected, other people could be alerted and self-isolate to prevent further infection.
However, this is one big medical myth. If someone is asymptomatic, the viral concentration in their body is negligible because they have successfully overcome and destroyed the virus. They would be breathing out dead virus or severely weakened virus, i.e. artefacts with potentially anti-viral properties (i.e. vaccines). Most children are asymptomatic and do not spread the disease for this reason. Evidence from large scale studies in Germany and the US suggest children might even act as a firebreak to the virus in their families because they can overcome it so effectively and will be breathing out vaccine. This is the exact opposite of what has been peddled to justify socially distancing children from relatives, reorganising school classrooms and enforcing mask wearing in children. We are compromising the education and mental health of children on the basis of a lie. Children need to see faces to learn how to interact with other people and do not respond well to stressful environments created by adults.
“Track and Trace” is a trial of mainstream surveillance technology where the government can monitor your location, listen in on your conversations, hack your devices and access private information, plain and simple. Once the application is on your phone, it can bypass security settings and will track you, with or without your permission.
The Testing Scandal
People demanded access to a test once the hysteria resulting from the fear was established within the population by the constant negativity and the managed media message, took hold. It was supposed to ensure a safe working environment, especially for medical staff. However, being tested “positive” simply means go and self-isolate, i.e. quarantine regardless of whether you are unwell. It does not mean access to treatment unless you become seriously ill. The problem with the test is its basic inaccuracy — it generates an enormous number of false positives. The test is over-sensitive, far outside the boundaries of what would be considered a safe, reliable test suitable for mass testing . Again, we have a piece of political propaganda masquerading with scientific clothes on but with no real value as to managing the disease.
It is thus morally unjustified to use it and then tell people on the basis of a positive test that they need to self-isolate, i.e. lose their liberty, even to leave the house for food or exercise. At the very least there should be a confirmatory test. There is also the distinction between having antibodies against COVID and being infected with COVID. The testing regimes do not recognise that distinction properly. The test can thus be used as an instrument of extreme social control by “flagging” you as infected when you are not and compelling you to self-isolate. This may not be too much of a problem when a test is not mandatory, but it is not much of a jump to see how a test can be made mandatory for future “public health” emergencies and how easy it is to abuse it. In Canada someone was jailed for 3 years and fined over 1-million dollars for failing to fully quarantine, they went to the shop for supplies after 7 days of isolation. That is a perfect example of tyranny.
The Africa Problem
There is no COVID “crisis” in Africa despite the energetic efforts of the global media, WHO and the UN to create one in the minds of the Africans. “Experts”, that wonderful term again, predicted a “complete meltdown” on the continent because of a lack of medical infrastructure, overcrowding, poverty and the inability to social distance. This was the “standard” scientific line to explain why New York, for example, had suffered so badly. Yet even the “hotspot” of South Africa has a deathrate around seven times lower than the UKs. At a similar point in the epidemic in Spain (examining antibody presence in the population), Spain had reported 27000 deaths, but Kenya had 100. Both the screenshots below show the massively lower fatality rates (green lines on the left, lack of red bars on the right).
This has been a source of exasperation for sections of the epidemiological community and many have confessed “I just do not understand what is going on in Africa”.
Various explanations have been offered:
a. The life expectancy in Africa varies from between 59–75 and averages in the low 60s. As the deathrate for the elder demographic is much higher, the statistics have been skewed. Answer: the figures used in the charts above were adjusted to compensate and deathrate is still much lower than expected.
b. Testing rate is low — therefore infections are not detected. Answer: an increased mortality rate would still be expected in those nations even if not ascribed to COVID-19. That has not happened.
c. Africa is more skilled at handling epidemics. Answer: The early narrative about Africa was that COVID-19 would decimate it because of the poor health infrastructure. Let us not talk both ways out of our scientific mouths!
d. Africa experiences more coronavirus infections and that creates some resistance to COVID-19. Answer: Common colds are coronaviruses; we all have good exposure to them.
e. The high density of township (“slum”) dwellers is creating herd immunity quicker. Answer: Well, Sweden was right after all! Let us talk both ways out of our scientific mouths!
Of course, these are fascinating conjectures which may have some significance at the edges of the data, but they are speculative, weak and above all, unnecessary. There is a much more obvious explanation backed-up by years of prior research and data. This is described at length by Dr Geoff Mitchell who is a WHO recognised doctor and an attorney who has practised worldwide. The explanation rather is that the anti-malarial drug HCQ was in common use amongst the populations and has been shown to be effective both as a preventative measure against COVID and a treatment in the early stage disease. Dr Mitchell demonstrates that a simple map overlay of the countries where HCQ usage is high shows a much lower mortality rate; the correlation is strong and requires only slight qualification where other demographic factors are more significant, e.g. Australia.
Yet again, we find an astonishing myopia and deliberate prejudice against a medication that would bring immediate benefits if made generally available to the world. We see that the interests of big-pharma and the internationalist social reformers are prepared to tolerate the death-rate as “collateral damage” if it means their better world is built and billions can be made from a vaccine at the same time.
“this is the ‘why’…this drug kills an industry better than it does the virus”
This can only be described as the actions of evil and immoral agents.
All Hail The Vaccine!
Today (9th Nov 2020) was a significant day, a “milestone” day, the cry of Whitty was heard across the airwaves, science has triumphed — the BBC Reports on a vaccine with a 90% success rate! However, before you get too carried away, there is a second report that wants “to put that into context” — how unusual of the BBC to want to do that, have they been converted to fair and balanced reporting at the last moment? This report tells us the vaccination programme will be with us at least until the end of 2021.
Now, here, again we are ignoring basic science. What we will know is that COVID-19 will be very different at the end of 2021. It will have changed and mutated, any vaccine will have progressively reduced efficacy. If the vaccine is still being peddled it with either be a placebo or replaced with something else. Thus, my point about a “virus pipeline” stands and at any time we can restart lockdowns and social reconstruction with a new “strain”, as perhaps illustrated by the Danish mink experience this week. It was that easy and that straightforward to create another hysterical panic as now being witnessed in that even Danish hauliers are banned from entering many countries. There are currently at least 19 other vaccines under development for COVID-19. How many would you like to take?
Update 14/12/2020 — the UK Health Minister has just announced a “new strain” of COVID-19. The effectiveness of existing vaccines against it is “unknown”. Not really, as I mention above, epidemiologists understand what will happen very well — the vaccine will be little more than a placebo in twelve months and you will be “asked” to take another one and another one, for however long it is required to get the reconstruction of the economic relationships in the world done, a replacement of free enterprise with synarchic socialism.
However, what is even more sinister and cynical is the timing of the announcement — just days after the media have declared Joe Biden as “President elect”. Trump was the “wrecking ball” for the internationalists for the last four years and looked invincible because of the economic resurgence of the US with his “America First” policy. Black unemployment was the lowest it had ever been, Latino unemployment was the lowest it had ever been. Business had flooded back into the US and he had prohibited imports where cheap labour was putting Americans out of work. That was, until the bottom fell out of the American economy with the beginning of the COVID-era. Now, ending the COVID-era, or at least turning it down a few notches, will be of great benefit to the incoming administration, as long as they tow the internationalist line and follow the reconstruction agenda. Step out of line and we now have a rehearsed process to follow that pulls all the nations back into the internationalist fold.
So, just because we have a vaccine do not think we are all back to the “old normal”. We Brits have already been told to carry on “behaving ourselves” and to “remember our new patterns of behaviour”. We might be let out of the prison for a short time, but we still have the ankle bracelets on, and we can easily be renditioned back to jail. The pieces are now all in place and a successful trial of the use of a pandemic to reset the world economy to a centralised, synarchic socialist model has been proved.
 Flu often causes damage and exacerbates existing respiratory conditions, and many people die as a consequence but not immediately, because of flu. “Flu” often complicates into pneumonia or other respiratory conditions and all these conditions are sometimes grouped together as “flu” which is why what the figure is meant to convey needs to be clarified which was patently not done here.
 During the most severe section of the initial lockdown, the British people were encouraged to come out at 8pm on a Thursday evening and “applaud” their National Health Service. This only makes sense when you understand the NHS inspires a religion-like commitment among its supporters. With its appropriation of the “Rainbow” symbol, it becomes a naked act of idolatry for what was once a Christian nation.
 It is rather like saying that the “average salary” for a UK worker is around £30K a year — however, the crude average measure hides the fact that most people in the UK earn less than £30K but a few people earn many millions a year. The average without qualification is meaningless measure used only by politicians wanting to hide the poverty within massive parts of our population.
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52180783 The article itself is of mediocre quality and does not reference the research properly but the comments in the final paragraph from “others experts” are salient ones.
 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6.full.pdf, accessed October 14th 2020.
 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6.full.pdf, accessed October 14th 2020.
 https://heated.medium.com/how-should-we-be-reacting-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic-7b3189b1097b and https://heated.medium.com/theres-an-epidemic-that-s-a-bigger-threat-than-the-coronavirus-ce6e0697185b
 Vaccines are typically “weakened” virus that produces an immune response but does not make the host ill (or only mildly so). It thus “pre-arms” the immune system of the person that takes the vaccine against the full-strength virus and prevents them from becoming seriously ill.
 As it will rely on low-level driver features — did you notice updates pushed out just after lockdown? Even my old phone that had not received any for years got an update!
 Dr Richard Urso MD, “Testing and Transmission Inaccuracies”, https://planetmacneil.org/media/TestingInaccuracies_150PM.mp3 . This is an audio archive of a video presentation, visit https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/summit2/ to register (free) and watch the presentation.
 Dr Anne Barasa (Pathologist), University of Nairobi, quoted in https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/pandemic-appears-have-spared-africa-so-far-scientists-are-struggling-explain-why/ , accessed 8th Nov 2020
 Dr Geoff Mitchell MD, “Real World COVID-19 Experience — in Sub-Saharan Africa”
 Dr Richard Urso, “Hydroxychloroquine: Summary of the Evidence”, https://planetmacneil.org/media/hcqevidence.mp3 . This an audio archive of the video presentation at https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/summit2/ that requires you to register (free) for access.
 Placebos are used in medical studies when randomising trials. People are given a “fake” medication so that they can be compared with those who had a genuine medication. The person is not aware they have not received the genuine medication.