Jacinda has locked down New Zealand again to save us all from the dreaded delta variant. Well, I tell you what, I’d take my chances with the delta variant any day of the week thank you very much. When we look at the true risk from the delta variant, it is utterly delusional for Jacinda to be taking the action she is taking for the level of ‘threat’ that the delta variant poses. The name delta sounds bad doesn’t it. It sounds like some kind of military code name, so it must be really bad. Bad enough to put the fear of God right through the whole nation and have everyone walking around in masks terrified of each other like some kind of dystopian zombie horror movie.
How bad is the delta variant? At last count there were around 450 reported cases of delta in New Zealand. How many have died from this supposedly super deadly virus with a scary military type name? Zero. So far. None out of approximately 450. That number is likely a lot higher than 450 if we assume that there will be many Kiwis who have the delta virus but have not been tested because the symptoms are mostly so mild.
In Australia where the delta variant has been going for longer, there have been a few deaths reportedly caused by the delta variant. But overall the reported mortality rate in Australia from the delta variant is only around 1 in 500 (0.2%), and in the UK, where more than 300,000 cases of the delta variant have been reported, the mortality rate is 1 in 3,500 (virtually zero) for under 50s, and overall around 1 in 400 across all age groups (0.25%).
That is a mortality rate of normal seasonal flu. In fact, across New Zealand and Australia an average of around 3,500 people die every year from normal seasonal flu.
Meanwhile, the experimental COVID-19 vaccine that Jacinda is rolling out to save us all from the terrifying delta stats listed above, has at last count had 26 Kiwis die shortly after receiving it and more than 9,000 Kiwis reporting adverse effects. This is according to the NZ government official yellow card system.
So let me just get this straight. The virus has killed zero people (at the time of writing), but the cure has potentially killed 26 Kiwis and hurt more than 9,000. Meanwhile the entire country also continues to be completely devastated by the delta lockdown, border closure, and other COVID measures. It is utterly insane by any measure.
Thanks also to the daily fear brainwashing by the New Zealand media, which Jacinda gave $50 million to, a significant chunk of the Kiwi population also seems to have been afflicted by a pandemic of terror and collective insanity as they continue to legitimize and support the lunacy.
While we’re in the flow of Jacinda’s COVID responses that are not in tune with sanity, here are a couple of highly relevant questions for our Prime Minister which never seem to get asked by our mainstream media, but which do get regularly asked, but not heard, by many of our frontline doctors and scientists. Why is New Zealand not allowing proven, cheap, and (normally) accessible treatments/cures for COVID-19 to be used to treat and cure COVID-19 cases? The COVID-19 cure that is featuring the most at the moment around the world is Ivermectin. 61 peer reviewed scientific studies have proven Ivermectin to result in a decrease in hospitalization and deaths from COVID-19 by almost 100% when administered early. Similar results have been achieved with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Vitamin D, and other treatments.
Japan has just suspended their vaccine rollout and the Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association has recommended that all doctors now start using Ivermectin.
India was recently hit by a massive outbreak of COVID-19 cases, with hundreds of deaths per day. They rolled out Ivermectin across most of the country, and in every one of the regions where this was done, the death rate from COVID-19 rapidly dropped to virtually zero, in line with the results of all those peer reviewed scientific studies.
Many other countries have successfully been using either Ivermectin or HCQ. It’s just that unfortunately the we never hear about this from our government or the mainstream media. As Jacinda has told us all, her and the New Zealand government are to be the ‘one source of truth’ and nothing else should be listened to.
The New Zealand COVID-19 lockdown and border catastrophe could be ended in a heartbeat with these treatments. Why is Jacinda flatly ignoring and blocking these extremely cheap and normally very accessible treatments? Does it have anything to do with Big Pharma making profit margins in the trillions from the global vaccine rollout? If that is the case, then that is not a good look for Jacinda and the New Zealand government. To say the least!
The final question for Jacinda (let’s be kind to each other) and the New Zealand government is this. There have been COVID-19 press briefings on an almost daily basis, and there has been a gigantic marketing campaign of ‘let’s unite against COVID’ pumped into every corner of New Zealand society for 18 months now. What percentage of that tsunami of information and messaging over the last 18 months has been based around the most important thing that can help Kiwis with this health challenge? Namely a strong immune system built up through healthy lifestyles of good eating, exercise etc. That would be 0%. Not a peep about these critically important things from our ‘leaders’.
It’s almost like Jacinda and the New Zealand government don’t really care about our health and well-being, and are much more interested in things like gargantuan sized profit margins for Big Pharma, bribing the New Zealand media to keep propping up the required narrative, squashing small private Kiwi businesses out of existence, and implementing a socialist style controlled and obedient society.
The current farcical lockdown of New Zealand is literally delta delusion.
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance
While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.
The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.
One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.
What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.
Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3 and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.
Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6
Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7
Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).
Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.
(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)
Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8
“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.
Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”
World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin
Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.
Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.
Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.
Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11
Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored
If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.
Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.
His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14
But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15
“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?
What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?
The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’
The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.
The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”
The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised
The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16
As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17
“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …
Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.
In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.
The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.
The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”
FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin
In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22
Based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.
As noted by the FLCCC:23
“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.
… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”
The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:
I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26 in mid-December 2020
I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome
In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.
This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”
Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death
The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.
In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.
In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”
The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.
In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.
It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.
Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome
The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.
Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.
Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.
While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.
A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.
UK Dr, Samuel White has resigned, sick of the lies & cover up. The cures suppressed, the unnecessary deaths. The real risks of the jab and what it really is. A short 7 min or less watch. Vital, crucial info for you. This is a medical doctor who like many others now is taking his pledge of ‘do no harm’ with great seriousness. Please listen. There are three links. The Instagram is the longest, fb and twitter are condensed. Links below:
NEW DELHI — India has received the baton for title of COVID Capitol of the World after China, Italy and the United States held it for much of last year.
The world second-most populace country after China had fewer than 138,000 total active COVID cases in early February 2021. That’s the lowest figure since January 2020. India active COVID cases sit around 3.6 million today, according to the India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mainstream media are blaming the massive spike on a “scary, mutant variant” called B.1.617.
Said media are also speculating whether or not the “vaccines” will work against the variant. Only about 2.8% of India is vaccinated. Have no fear. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are here.
The India health ministry updated its guidelines on April 28 for quarantines, treating the asymptomatic and those with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The agency now says that asymptomatic patients should “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days.” Caregivers of patients in quarantine are instructed to “take Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.” See the full document here.
World Health Organization, big pharma freak out
There are 292 studies (219 are peer-reviewed) proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as both a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Ivermectin has 93 studies (54 peer-reviewed) showing its effectiveness as treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19. Despite the now-indisputable fact that these drugs essentially kill COVID-19 within hours or days, the Bill Gates-funded World Health Organization (WHO) and big pharma are having fits over India’s new guidelines and the results.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA –“When one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” Joseph Goebbels, January 12, 1941 in Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.
Both Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been on the market for decades, with mountains of data demonstrating their safety and efficacy. These drugs are also dirt cheap to manufacture and store. All of the foregoing is great news if the goals of U.S. government and big pharma is public health and eradicating COVID-19. But those never have been and never will be the goals. “They” want everyone injected with synthetic mRNA, synthetic DNA and nanoparticles.
A 56 minute lecture by Dr Simone Gold who is a part of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). AFLDS believe “that the American people have the right to accurate information using trusted data derived from decades of practical experience, not politicized science and Big Tech-filtered public health information.” (Read their full mission statement here). She is author of the book I Do Not Consent: My Fight Against Medical Cancel Culture.
Excerpts: “From treating COVID patients in her local hospital to fighting for the rights of frontline doctors, Dr. Simone Gold tells her story.“
“The bumper-sticker directive to ‘follow the science’ was actually an evasion of responsibility. It let people off the hook for their bad decisions in a crisis. Was New York Governor Cuomo’s executive order sending COVID-hospitalized patients back to nursing homes to infect other vulnerable nursing home patients ‘following the science’? Of course not. And sending post-hospitalization COVID-positive patients back to nursing homes was unnecessary. Relative to the total nursing home population, Governor Cuomo contributed to a larger percentage of nursing-home deaths—especially when compared to the states without such a policy. New Jersey’s over seven thousand nursing home deaths account for half of the state’s fatalities since March. Pennsylvania did just as miserably. These governors made specific decisions that cost thousands of the most vulnerable, most expendable, their lives. But they didn’t do it to their own relatives.”
Dr Gold’s lecture gives very comprehensive coverage of the experimental vaccine from the perspective of a medical professional. She covers info about the CV, the history, the banned cures, the injuries, the origin of the CV and more … info you won’t hear on mainstream. A must watch before making your informed decisions around possible medical treatments, particularly as the NZ govt clearly wishes to inject all NZ citizens. EWR
Posted by State Of The Nation Dear Physicians of America:
First, may we say that the American people are extremely thankful for the valorous efforts many of you have made throughout 2020.
Not only have many Americans been saved from the COVID-19 disease through your medical interventions and urgent care, physicians across the nation have put themselves in harm’s way as never before. Some have died; many have been infected in the line of duty. Our deepest gratitude to you all!
We respectfully write this letter to you out of grave concern during the coronavirus pandemic.
It has been proven conclusively that there is an extremely effective treatment for COVD-19.
“We’re America’s Frontline Doctors. We’re here only to help American patients and the American nation heal. We have a lot of information to share. Americans are riveted and captured by fear at the moment. We are not held down by the virus as much as we’re being held down by the spider web of fear.”
“In the early phase either before you get the virus or early, when you’ve gotten the virus, if you’ve gotten the virus, there’s treatment. That’s what we’re here to tell you. We’re going to talk about that this afternoon. You can find it on America’s Frontline Doctors, there’s many other sites that are streaming it live on Facebook. But we implore you to hear this because this message has been silenced. There are many thousands of physicians who have been silenced for telling the American people the good news about the situation”.
We have been given a very clear narrative about the declared coronavirus pandemic. The UK State has passed legislation, in the form of the Coronavirus Act, to compel people to self isolate and practice social distancing in order to delay the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (SC2). We are told this “lockdown”, a common prison term, is essential. We are also told that SC2 has been clearly identified to be the virus which causes the COVID 19 syndrome.
At the time of writing SC2 is said to have infected 60,733 people with 7,097 people supposedly dying of COVID 19 in the UK. This case fatality ration (CFR) of 11.7% is seemingly one of the worst in the world. Furthermore, with just 135 people recovered, the recovery rate in the UK is inexplicably low.
Some reading this may baulk at use of words like “seemingly” and “alleged” in reference to these statistics. The mainstream media (MSM) have been leading the charge to cast anyone who questions the State’s coronavirus narrative as putting lives at risk. The claim being that questioning what we are told by the State, its officials and the MSM undermines the lockdown. The lockdown is, we are told, essential to save lives.
It is possible both to support the precautionary principle and question the lockdown. Questioning the scientific and statistical evidence base, supposedly justifying the complete removal of our civil liberties, does not mean those doing so care nothing for their fellow citizens. On the contrary, many of us are extremely concerned about the impact of the lockdown on everyone. It is desperately sad to see people blindly support their own house arrest while attacking anyone who questions the necessity for it.
The knee jerk reaction, assuming any questioning of the lockdown demonstrates a cavalier, uncaring disregard is puerile. Grown adults shouldn’t simply believe everything they are told like mindless idiots. Critical thinking and asking questions is never “bad” under any circumstances whatsoever.
Only the State, with the unwavering support of its MSM propaganda operation, enforces unanimity of thought. If a system cannot withstand questioning it suggests it is built upon shaky foundations and probably not worth maintaining. Yet perhaps it is what we are not told that is more telling.
Among the many things we are not told is how many lives the lockdown will ruin and end prematurely. Are these lives irrelevant?
We are not told the evidence for the existence of a virus called SARS-CoV-2 is highly questionable and the tests for it unreliable; we are not told that the numbers of deaths reportedly caused by COVID 19 is statistically vague, seemingly deliberately so; we are not told that these deaths are well within the normal range of excess winter mortality and we are not told that in previous years excess winter deaths have been higher than they are now.
We didn’t need to destroy the economy in response to those, far worse, periods of loss so why do we need to do so for this?
We will look at this in more detail in Part 2.
Understanding Mainstream Media Disinformation
Before we address what we are not being told it’s worth looking at how the MSM is spreading disinformation. On February 22nd one rag printed a story which absurdly alleged, without a shred of evidence, that Russia was somehow deliberately spreading disinformation about coronavirus. It reported this uncritically, questioning nothing. Their opening paragraph read:
Thousands of Russian-linked social media accounts have launched a coordinated effort to spread misinformation and alarm about coronavirus, disrupting global efforts to fight the epidemic, US officials have said.”
On March 10th the same rag reported another story about disinformation in which it was noted:
Disinformation experts say, there remains little evidence of concerted efforts to spread falsehoods about the virus, suggesting that the misleading information in circulation is spread primarily through grassroots chatter.”
The irony shouldn’t be overlooked. Directly contradicting their own previous disinformation, this MSM pulp assumes we are all so stupid we won’t notice their perpetual spin and evidence-free claims. The UK’s national broadcaster the BBC is perhaps the worst of all the disinformation propagandists. The sheer volume of disinformation they are pumping out is quite breathtaking.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights spells out what freedom of expression means. All human beings are born free with equal dignity and rights. All are afforded these rights without any distinction at all. Article 19 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The BBC, who obviously couldn’t care less about human rights, gleefully supported the censorship of so called conspiracy theorist David Icke. They did so by spreading disinformation. Icke raised concerns about the possible link between 5G and the spread of coronavirus. He did not incite violence, as suggested in the BBC’s disinformation. The BBC misled the public utterly when they stated:
“Conspiracy theories linking 5G signals to the coronavirus pandemic continue to spread despite there being no evidence the mobile phone signals pose a health risk.”
While I agree with the BBC that there is no evidence of a link between 5G and the apparent coronavirus, we certainly can’t rule it out. Because the second half of their statement, that there is no evidence that mobile signals pose a health risk, was a mendacious deceit.
…mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.”
Why are the BBC so willing to mislead the public and expose them to unnecessary health harms? Is it deliberate or are they just shoddy journalists?
Either way, quite clearly they are habitual pedlars of disinformation. They appear to no better than the worst clickbait sites that have proliferated over recent years.
The MSM is responsible for the majority of misinformation and disinformation circulating at the moment. We must diligently verify every claim they make and check the evidence ourselves. They are not to be trusted. As the BBC quite rightly points out:
STOP BEFORE YOU SHARE CHECK YOUR SOURCES
(If it’s the MSM check to see if they offer any evidence at all or if it’s just their opinion. If it’s their opinion ignore it. It’s almost certainly unfounded)
PAUSE IF YOU FEEL EMOTIONAL
(If you do feel emotional you have probably just been manipulated by the MSM)
“Science Led” Means Cherry Picking Science
The UK State has been keen to insist that we all believe their lockdown response is led by the science. However they have cherry picked the science to roll out the lockdown and ignored the considerable scientific evidence which contradicts it. Both the UK and U.S. governments used the computer models of Imperial College London (ICL), predicting millions of deaths, to justify the removal of our civil liberties.
Almost as soon as the lockdown was in place the scientists, having launched their vaccine research fund raiser, downgraded their projections from an estimated 550,000 deaths in the UK to 20,000 or even lower. Neil Furguson, the lead scientist responsible for the initial ICL report stated that they had revised the figures because of the effectiveness of the lockdown safety measures.
Claiming the lockdown would need to last for at least 18 months until a vaccine is found. ICL are grant recipients of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They have shown no interests at all in researching possible preventative treatments, reducing the need for a vaccine, such as hydroxychloroquine.
The initial ICL computer models were based upon unproven assumptions. They assumed that SC2 would spread like influenza. This was contrary to the findings of the World Health Organisation who stated both that SC2 did not appear to spread as quickly as influenza and was less virulent.
The WHO found up to a 20% infection rate, where people were exposed to SC2 in crowded settings for prolonged periods, and a 1-5% infection rate in the community. This was nothing like the spread of the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.
However, publishing their paper on March 16th, the ICL completely ignored the WHO research which was published a month earlier and stated, without any justification whatsoever:
COVID-19, a virus with comparable lethality to H1N1 influenza in 1918”
Public Health England (PHE) disagreed with ICL’s evidence free assumptions and downgraded COVID 19 from a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID), due to relatively low mortality rates.
However, ignoring both the WHO and PHE, the UK and US decided only the ICL knew what they were talking about. Cherry-picking their highly dubious research, they insisted the lockdown was necessary to “flatten the curve” and, in the UK, protect the NHS.
The science the State has chosen to believe is the minority view it seems. Epidemiologists, epidemiological statisticians, microbiologists, mathematicians and many other scientists and academics the world over have repeatedly warned that the lockdown is precisely the wrong thing to do.
COVID 19, the disease supposedly caused by SC2, is experienced as little more than a bad cough or cold by the vast majority of relatively healthy people. Dr Knut M. Wittkowski (Ph.D) is among the growing number of globally renowned scientists who question what we are told by the State and its MSM. In regard to both SC2 and COVID 19.
Dr Wittkowski stated:
“With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus. it’s very important to keep the schools open and kids mingling to spread the virus to get herd immunity as fast as possible, and then the elderly people, who should be separated, and the nursing homes should be closed during that time, can come back and meet their children and grandchildren after about 4 weeks when the virus has been exterminated….If we had herd immunity now, there couldn’t be a second wave in autumn.”
Such scientists and academics are all completely ignored by the State. Yet they believe others, such as Professor Neil Ferguson and Professor Karine Lacombe without hesitation. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the scientists the State chooses to believe overwhelmingly appear to have close links to the globalist foundations and pharmaceutical corporations developing the vaunted coronavirus vaccine.
Are You Sure About The Coronavirus Lockdown?
Those who reject all criticiam of the lockdown, and simply accept whatever the State tells them, presumably believe the State only has our best interests at heart and would never do anything to harm us. Perhaps they believe that to question the claims of the State can only ever be conspiracy theory.
However, there is also plenty of evidence that the State frequently deceives the public. We only need look to the WMD lies told to start an illegal Iraq war in 2003 to understand that the State is willing to further the interests of the powerful and cares little about lives lost in the effort.
Therefore, in the UK, it is worth recapping what it is we are consenting to with the Coronavirus Act:
We consent to increased State surveillance of ourselves and our family.
We are happy that we could be detained, without charge, because some state official suspects, or claims they suspect, we may be infected.
It is fine with us that we or our loved ones can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act on the recommendation of a single doctor and neither we nor they need to have the protection of a second opinion before we are locked up.
We accept that the state can retain our biometric data and fingerprints for an extended period.
We consent that jury trials are a bit of an anachronism and Judges can hear more evidence by video or even audio link.
We think its fine that the evidence required, and processes undertaken, to determine and record our or our loved one’s deaths can be eroded to the point where they can be registered by people with no medical or legal expertise at all.
We don’t think the NHS needs to adhere to practice standards or bother with assessing the needs of some patients, especially older people.
We are also fine with the complete suspension of democracy in Britain.
We accept all of this based upon a unique subset of scientific opinion which, contrary to every known scientific principle, can never be questioned.
We agree with the MSM that people who question any aspect of the stories they tell us are dangerous because these people just don’t care if their own loved ones die. Only true believers care about their families.
I don’t know about you, but I remain unconvinced by the evidence I’ve seen so far. I have no doubt that there is a health crisis and excess seasonal deaths, but I have seen no evidence at all that the numbers are unprecedented or unusual in any way. Evidence we will explore in greater detail in Part 2.
I accept that we should exercise the precautionary principle and take steps to limit the risks to the most vulnerable but I do not accept that the lockdown is the best way to go about it. Nor do I see any necessity at all for all the other dictatorial clauses in the Coronavirus Act. I do not consent.
If you think this will all be over soon and won’t get worse I’m afraid you may be disappointing. The UK state have based this lockdown on the scientific rubbish spewed out by ICL. Here’s another one of the ICL’s recommendations:
The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package – or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission – will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more).”
There is nothing to suggest this isn’t the intention of the State. Certainly voices in the U.S. are already indicating their desire for an 18 month lockdown. Apparently taking their cue directly from the discredited ICL report and steadfastly ignoring everything else. Nor should we assume the draconian powers seized by the state won’t get worse.
Most of this response is being driven by globalist policy emanating, on this occasion, from the World Health Organisation. Speaking at the daily WHO press briefing on the March 30th Dr. Michael Ryan, Executive Director of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme, said:
Lockdowns and shutdowns really should just be part of an overall comprehensive strategy…..Most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household at family level….Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”
Given that we now live in a de facto dictatorship there’s no reason to believe that states across the globe won’t use this as justification to start removing people from their homes. My hope is that sense will prevail and, as it becomes clear the pandemic is waning, public pressure will mount to repeal this dictatorial legislation.
However, given some of the comments I have seen on social media over the last two weeks, the panic buying and attacks upon anyone questioning the State’s narrative, it seems many people are so frightened they desperately need to believe the State is trying to save them.
This fear is based upon apparent ignorance of the economic severity of the lockdown and the monumental health risk it poses. People don’t seem to want to know there is considerable doubt the Coronavirus Act is even legal in international law. There is also doubt that SARS-CoV-2 is an identifiable virus and the statistics we are given may well be based upon tests that can’t identify it anyway. There is evidence that the statistics we have been given have been deliberately manipulated to exaggerate the health risk and there is no evidence these excess deaths are “unprecedented.”