Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency
BREAKING NEWS: Doctors and Scientists Write to European Medicines Agency Warning of COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers
10th March 2021
A group of scientists and doctors has today issued an open letter calling on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to answer urgent safety questions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, or withdraw the vaccines’ authorisation.
The letter describes serious potential consequences of COVID-19 vaccine technology, warning of possible autoimmune reactions, blood clotting abnormalities, stroke and internal bleeding, “including in the brain, spinal cord and heart”. The authors request evidence that each medical danger outlined “was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.”
“Should all such evidence not be available”, the authors write, “we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.”
The letter is addressed to Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the EMA, and was sent on Monday 1 March 2021. The letter was copied to the President of the Council of Europe and the President of the European Commission.
It states: “We are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions.” However, “there are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute ‘human experimentation’, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.”
For comment contact Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD: firstname.lastname@example.org, or Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD:email@example.com
In a public statement the group said…
“No sooner did we deliver our letter than the Norwegian Medicines Agency warned that COVID-19 vaccines may be too risky for use in the frail elderly, the very group these vaccines are designed to protect. We would add that, by virtue of the mechanisms of action of the vaccines, to stimulate the production of spike protein, which has adverse pathophysiological properties, there may also be vulnerable people who are not old and already ill. New data shows that vaccine side effects are three times as common in those who have previously been infected with coronavirus, for example. None of the vaccines have undergone clinical testing for more than a few months, which is simply too short for establishing safety and efficacy.
“Therefore, as a starting point, we believe it is important to enumerate and evaluate all deaths which have occurred within 28 days of vaccination, and to compare the clinical pictures with those who have not been vaccinated.
“More broadly, with respect to the development of COVID-19 vaccines, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has stated in their Resolution 2361, on 27th January 2021, that member states must ensure all COVID-19 vaccines are supported by high quality trials that are sound and conducted in an ethical manner. EMA officials, and other regulatory bodies in EU countries, are bound by these criteria. They should be made aware that they may be violating Resolution 2361 by applying medical products still in phase 3 studies.
“Under Resolution 2361, member states must also inform citizens that vaccination is NOT mandatory and ensure that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to become vaccinated. States are further required to ensure that no one is discriminated against for not receiving the vaccine.”
The letter comes as a petition against UK Government plans for vaccine passports passed 270,000 signatures, more than double that required to compel consideration for debate by MPs. The petition will be debated in the UK Parliament on 15th March 2021.
Doctors and scientists can sign the open letter by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to: Doctors4CovidEthics@protonmail.com.
The offence of ‘battery’ is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force. For a doctor, nurse or any person to administer a vaccine without the ‘informed consent’ of the recipient is to commit a criminal offence. This is likely to be charged as ‘assault and battery’. A person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of an offence is themselves guilty of an offence contrary to Section 44 of the Serious Offences Act 1997. If a worker rolls up their sleeve reluctantly, There are a number of employers who might read this article very nervously….
Consent is no defence
In a judgment still binding on Courts throughout the UK, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) held that where people commit violence against each other, even if the violence is in private and by mutual consent, an offence may still be committed. Reasoning that “society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence”, the Court held that consent is not a valid defence. (R v Brown UKHL 19 (11 March 1993)
The facts concerned sadomasochistic practices of a group of men where the least serious offence charged and upheld was assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). ABH is a step up from battery in terms of seriousness. ABH is typically charged for scratches, bruises and bite marks. It may also embrace puncture of the flesh with a needle. Coming forward to 2020 and 2021, it would be difficult to imagine that puncture with a needle and injection of a foreign substance to the body, liable to cause adverse reaction to the recipient, is anything but very serious indeed.
Informed Consent and Criminality
In the medical context, it has always been essential for someone administering a vaccine to know that the patient is giving their informed consent to receive it. The requirement for informed consent is fundamental to medical practice. (For further information about informed consent, see section 8 of the letter Stop Testing in Schools.)
The criminality arising under threat of ‘no jab no pay’ arises by the following logical steps:
By definition, if agreement is coerced, it is not by consent; if access to the benefits of work is only given in return for consenting to a vaccine, that consent is not free
A nurse giving the vaccine is required to ensure the worker gives informed consent, current at the time of treatment
If a nurse knows that the worker’s consent is not free but is given under threat of ‘no jab no pay’ (or any detriment or bribe), the nurse commits an offence by administering the vaccine
Further, and especially given public debate and publicity on the issue, it offers no defence for medical practices to turn their heads away from the circumstances in which any patient submits to a vaccine. Given the numbers of people being vaccinated, to take for granted that none are under threat, or that those who are will speak up of their own accord, is reckless. They will, after all, have shown submission to the threat just by turning up.
The doctor/nurse is therefore under a positive duty to ensure informed consent is given. That requires taking steps, which should be recorded prior to treatment if they wish to defend themselves against criminal prosecution, to ensure the patient is under no threat of ‘no jab no pay’ or similar. They will be reckless to conduct their practice otherwise.
The Courts can defend the people
We are unaware of this issue of criminality being raised before this post. However, most of us could not have imagined circumstances in which the freedom of society has been taken away by this Government. If ever there was a time for the Courts to exercise common law powers to stop this particular cult of violence, at least against large unwilling sections of the public, surely it is now.
If support were needed for the Courts in stepping up, they may look to Europe. The Right to Privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which still applies in the UK even after Brexit, includes the right to bodily integrity.
That right is reflected in the recent statement of the Council of Europe, of which the UK is one of 47 member states, whose focus is the promotion of respect for human rights under the ECHR. It reflects the moral compass of the European Union and on 27th January 2021 published and adopted the resolution of its members to:
7.3 " with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: "
7.3.1 " ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; "
7.3.2 "ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated "
If there is to be any individual freedom left in this country, when asked are the Courts really going to permit coercion to vaccinate through denial of access to work? It is time for a prosecution by the CPS but, if necessary, by private prosecution.
Civil Protection of Employment Rights
If our analysis above is correct, then it also opens up remedy for any worker or applicant for work under threat, regardless of their length of service and without need to rely on disability or inability to have a vaccine. They may not, for example, have unfair dismissal rights before an Employment Tribunal, but they may still apply to the Courts for an injunction to restrain the employer from making any such threats.
In passing, the analysis above applies to health workers as it does to anyone else. The argument is also relevant to ‘fairness’ in unfair dismissal claims and, regardless of the views of some legal commentators, any health worker is entitled to ask an Employment Tribunal to demand from the employer evidence as to why, in the particular circumstances of their job and their workplace, a vaccine is needed and has real benefit. Most lawyers seem to have paid little attention to evidence.
Evidence, perhaps, that the vulnerable are already protected, or that a worker has natural T-cell immunity already, or if other measures are available, or if the ‘case’ numbers are so low, or if the risk of adverse effect is comparatively greater than the risk from virus, or if the vaccine may be ineffective against transmission or against newly publicised variants or etc. etc. etc….
When it comes to evidence, scary headlines in mainstream media and press releases from No. 10 ought not to cut the mustard.
Any employee who raises the above with their employer and finds themselves subject to dismissed as a result may also be protected under whistleblower legislation and expert legal advice should be sought without delay. In seemingly strong cases, the Employment Tribunal has power to reverse the dismissal provided the application is made within 7 days.
Asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 didn’t occur at all, study of 10 million finds
By Michael Haynes as Published at LifeSite News
Only 300 asymptomatic cases in the study of nearly 10 million were discovered, and none of those tested positive for COVID-19.
WUHAN, China, December 23, 2020- A study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan, China, found that asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 did not occur at all, thus undermining the need for lockdowns, which are built on the premise of the virus being unwittingly spread by infectious, asymptomatic people.
Published in November in the scientific journal Nature Communications, the paper was compiled by 19 scientists, mainly from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, but also from scientific institutions across China as well as in the U.K. and Australia. It focused on the residents of Wuhan, ground zero for COVID-19, where 9,899,828 people took part in a screening program between May 14 and June 1, which provided clear results as to the possibility of any asymptomatic transmission of the virus.
Asymptomatic transmission has been the underlying justification of lockdowns enforced all across the world. The most recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) still states that the virus “can be spread by people who do not have symptoms.” In fact, the CDC claimed that asymptomatic people “are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of transmissions.”
U.K. Health Secretary Matt Hancock also promoted this message, explaining that the concept of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 led to the U.K. advocating masks and referring to the “problem of asymptomatic transmission.”
However, the new study in Nature Communications, titled “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,” debunked the concept of asymptomatic transmission.
It stated that out of the nearly 10 million people in the study, “300 asymptomatic cases” were found. Contact tracing was then carried out and of those 300, no cases of COVID-19 were detected in any of them. “A total of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases were traced, and they all tested negative for the COVID-19.”
Both the asymptomatic patients and their contacts were placed in isolation for two weeks, and after the fortnight, the results remained the same. “None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”
Further evidence showed that “virus cultures” in the positive and repositive asymptomatic cases were all negative, “indicating no ‘viable virus’ in positive cases detected in this study.”
Ages of those found to be asymptomatic ranged between 10 and 89, with the asymptomatic positive rate being “lowest in children or adolescents aged 17 and below” and highest rate found among people older than 60.
The study also made the realization that due to a weakening of the virus itself, “newly infected persons were more likely to be asymptomatic and with a lower viral load than earlier infected cases.”
These results are not without precedent. In June, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, shed doubt upon asymptomatic transmission. Speaking at a press conference, Van Kerkhove explained, “From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
She then repeated the words “It’s very rare,” but despite her word choice of “rare,” Van Kerkhove could not point to a single case of asymptomatic transmission, noting that numerous reports “were not finding secondary transmission onward.”
Her comments went against the predominant narrative justifying lockdowns, and at the time the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) highlighted that “she undermined the last bit of rationale there could be for lockdowns, mandated masks, social distancing regulation, and the entire apparatus of compulsion and coercion under which we’ve lived for three months.”
Swift to act, the WHO performed a U-turn, and the next day Van Kerkhove then declared that asymptomatic transmission was a “really complex question … We don’t actually have that answer yet.”
“I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies,” she added.
However, the new Wuhan study seems to present solid, scientific evidence that asymptomatic transmission is not just rare but nonexistent. Given that it found “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the study raises important questions about lockdowns.
Commenting on the study, The Conservative Tree House noted that “all of the current lockdown regulations, mask wearing requirements and social distancing rules/decrees are based on a complete fallacy of false assumptions.” The evidence presented in the study shows that “‘very rare’ actually means ‘never’ asymptomatic spread just doesn’t happen – EVER.”
Such a large scientific study of 10 million people should not be overlooked, Jeffrey Tucker argued in the AIER, as it should be “huge news,” paving the way “to open up everything immediately.” Yet media reports have been virtually nonexistent and “ignored,” a fact that Tucker explained: “The lockdown lobby ignores whatever contradicts their narrative, preferring unverified anecdotes over an actual scientific study of 10 million residents in what was the world’s first major hotspot for the disease we are trying to manage.”
The recent findings should enable society to reopen once more, according to the AIER. Without asymptomatic transmission, “the whole basis for post-curve-flattening lockdowns,” life should resume and “we could take comfort in our normal intuition that healthy people can get out and about with no risk to others.”
“We keep hearing about how we should follow the science,” Tucker added. “The claim is tired by now. We know what’s really happening.”
He closed his commentary with the question: “With solid evidence that asymptomatic spread is nonsense, we have to ask: Who is making decisions and why?”
Asymptomatic 'Casedemic' Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear
Published and verified by Dr Jospeh Mercola
The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected via PCR swab far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive” even if their viral load is very low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat
Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles or more “are minuscule.” Yet the CDC, FDA and WHO all recommend using 40 to 45 cycles
Recent research shows that to maximize accuracy, PCR tests for COVID-19 should use far fewer cycles. At 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives
When symptomatic, your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result
As coronavirus testing takes place en masse across the U.S., many are questioning whether the tests are accurate enough to trust, especially in people who are asymptomatic. Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several drawbacks that make mass testing problematic and rife for misleading fearmongering.
For starters, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.1 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.
Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” To understand why the false positive rate for PCR tests is so high, you need to understand how the test works.2
The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, because the genetic snippets are so tiny, they must be amplified to become discernible.
Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold. Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Some experts say nothing above 30 cycles should be used,3 yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.4,5,6
When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.
‘Casedemic’ Fuels Needless Fear
When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”7,8 meaning an epidemic of false positives.
Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is.
“The goal is to keep you scared, isolated and demoralized for a purpose,” says PJ Media.9 “Only a beaten nation would stand for what comes next.” And that next step is a reset of America as you know it, with the UN’s one-world Agenda 2030 at the helm. To learn more, be sure to read “What You Need to Know About the Great Reset.”
As reported by Global Research in “The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a ‘Test’ to Lock Down Society”:10
“Official postulate … positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”
COVID Testing Fraud Fuels ‘Casedemic’
In the video at the top of this article, Del Bigtree breaks down how excessively high test sensitivity leads to falsely elevated “case” numbers that in reality mean nothing. He rightly points out that missing from the COVID-19 conversation is the death rate.
“If COVID is a deadly virus, what should we see when cases increase?” he asks. The answer, of course, is an increase in deaths. However, that’s not what’s happening. The two have virtually nothing to do with each other.
In the video, Bigtree features a November 4, 2020, tweet11 by White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Scott Atlas showing the number of positive tests (aka “cases”) in blue and COVID-19 related deaths in red, since the start of the pandemic up until the end of October 2020. As you can see, there’s no correlation between so-called cases and deaths.
A second graph tweeted12 by Atlas shows the number of U.S. counties reporting more than 10 COVID-19 related deaths per day, based on New York Times data. It too indicates that the death rate is steadily dwindling.
Worldwide, we see the same phenomenon. The first graph below, from Bigtree’s video report, shows the worldwide daily new cases since the beginning of the pandemic. The second graph shows daily COVID-19 related deaths, worldwide. While the number of positive tests have risen, fallen and risen again, the number of deaths have fallen off and do not appear to be rising in tandem with positive test rates any longer.
Shocking Data Reveal Inaccuracy of PCR Tests
Circling back to the PCR cycle threshold and its influence on positivity rates, Bigtree reviews research13 showing that to really maximize accuracy, PCR tests should use far fewer cycles.
At just 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. In other words, 17 cycles would likely be the ideal CT. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero. This is the graph from that study.14
Percentage of positive viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from Covid-19 patients, according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve.
Other data presented by Bigtree shows that your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result.
If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 … ~ Dr. Anthony Fauci
By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually nonexistent.
Rapid Test Is Less Sensitive and May Be Better for Most
To address some of the shortcomings in PCR testing, most notably the time it takes to get the result, rapid tests have been developed that can provide an answer in minutes. These tests also appear to be less sensitive, which is actually a good thing. One such rapid test, called the Sofia by Quidel, looks for the presence of antigens (coronavirus proteins) rather than RNA.
In a recent comparison of PCR and the Quidel rapid test, University of Arizona researchers discovered that while the rapid test can detect more than 80% of the infections found by slower PCR tests, when used on asymptomatic individuals, that rate dropped to just 32%. (The study has not been published yet but was reviewed by experts solicited by The New York Times.15,16)
While a 32% detection rate may sound terrible, appearances can be deceiving. Remember, if labs are using a cycle threshold (CT) of, say, 40 cycles, the number of positive PCR results will be vastly exaggerated.
According to The New York Times,17 researchers have been “unable to grow the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR tests had CT values above 27.” If the virus cannot replicate, you will not get ill and are not infectious, so you cannot spread it to others.
When all PCR tests with a CT value over 30 were excluded from the comparison, the rapid test was found to detect more than 85% of the SARS-CoV-2 infections detected by the PCR tests, and this held true whether the individual had symptoms or not.
Mass Testing Shown To Be Ineffective at Best
Why are we still testing asymptomatic people? According to a study18,19 in the October 21, 2020, issue of PLOS ONE, mass testing is at best ineffective and at worst, harmful.
“Even for highly accurate tests, false positives and false negatives will accumulate as mass testing strategies are employed under pressure, and these misdiagnoses could have major implications on the ability of governments to suppress the virus,” the authors state.20
“The present analysis uses a modified SIR model to understand the implication and magnitude of misdiagnosis in the context of ending lockdown measures. The results indicate that increased testing capacity alone will not provide a solution to lockdown measures. The progression of the epidemic and peak infections is shown to depend heavily on test characteristics, test targeting, and prevalence of the infection.
Antibody based immunity passports are rejected as a solution to ending lockdown, as they can put the population at risk if poorly targeted. Similarly, mass screening for active viral infection may only be beneficial if it can be sufficiently well targeted, otherwise reliance on this approach for protection of the population can again put them at risk.”
In an August 28, 2020, interview with The Post,21 Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford, stated mass testing is “a huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs … It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good.”
Even Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that the PCR test is useless and misleading when run at “35 cycles or higher.”22 He made this comment in a July 16, 2020, “This Week in Virology” podcast:23
“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule … You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle … [or] even 36 …”
That then begs the question, why is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommending the test be run at a CT of 40?24 Why are Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization set to 45 cycles? As noted by author and investigative journalist Jon Rappaport:25
“All labs in the U.S. that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because… Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and …
The total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity. The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.
Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell … On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”
As published by the Centre for Research on Gloabalization
Since the first cases of the new coronavirus strain outside of China, every aspect of the pandemic’s ever-changing amoebic narrative has been carefully controlled by the World Health Organization and major government health agencies.
High officials within a syndicate of institutions, including the CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the UK’s National Health Service, have largely dictated government responses to lessen the pandemic. The Sars2-Cov19 pandemic is not the first time unelected medical bureaucrats, who the average person assumes to possess an enduring expertise, have guided global policies against pandemics and serious infectious outbreaks. The most recent example was the 2009-2010 HIN1 Swine Flu pandemic that never truly happened according to plan. Subsequently that effort revealed a surprising incompetence in the international medical hierarchy that can be blamed on the entire system rather than a few inept individuals.
However, during the current pandemic scare, something unusual and remarkably radical has happened. Historically, voices of opposition within institutionalized medicine remain relatively silent. Most often it is only a handful of health professionals who come forward to challenge official statements or to uncover the serious flaws in the scientific literature to support their actions.
Yet for the past year we have witnessed tens of thousands of physicians, medical experts and researchers coming forward publicly with harsh and even damning criticisms of how the ruling medical agencies have mishandled the pandemic. They easily recognize these agencies’ contradictions, the conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, the large body of medical literature deconstructing and discrediting their fundamental claims, and the evidence to prove their policies are scientifically baseless. These are not dissident mavericks. Over 52,000 medical professionals representing some of the world’s leading medical schools and research institutions have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration in protest against the official Covid-19 strategies and these policies’ serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of children, working class citizens and the poor. Moreover, they have nothing to gain. No financial interests jeopardize their judgments. And they are fully aware of the pushback and blacklisting that may follow and would injure their reputations.
Around the world, dissident medical voices are warning us that:
The official death counts, particularly in the US and the UK are grossly exaggerated
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was never created to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine Covid-19 infection or any other virus. Overreliance upon PCR is a travesty that has created a Case-pandemic rather an actual symptomatic scourge.
The evidence to support the belief that large social lockdowns and social distancing, perhaps even mask wearing, will deter the spread of the virus is overstated and inaccurate.
America’s official narrative, where the number of cases per capita far surpass any other nation, that effective, safe and cheaper drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have no value and post serious harm is completely unfounded. Rather, if used wisely it is highly effective and safe as a preventative measure for first stage treatment of mild and moderate infections.
A compilation of 210 studies on HCQ’s effectiveness against Covid-19, 145 peer reviewed, only found 26 showed that the cheap, widely used drug posed some risks or was ineffective. The remainder clearly indicate that HCQ is one of our best and most reliable courses of treatment. For example, a study of 585 patients treated with HCQ along with azithromycin and zinc were relieved in under 3 days and none were hospitalized, required ventilation or died. Another study published in the journal Clinical and Translational Science reported 73% reduction in hospitalization with no serious adverse events.
In the meantime, we are told we must wait for a vaccine or a new miracle drug and no other medical intervention is warranted other then personal hygienic practices, masks and social distancing.
The New York Times and other major media outlets are misrepresenting new cases of Covid-19 with the actual disease thereby grossly inflating those who may be positive but are otherwise healthy and pose no public threat.
The WHO’s, CDC’s and NHS’ internal confusion and culture of inconsistency is leaving more and more citizens questioning who can be trusted. Even the otherwise conservative British Medical Journal published a rare and brutal condemnation of the corruption and commercialization throughout the official Covid-19 narrative. BMJ’s executive editor Kamran Abbasi wrote:
“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”
Sadly mainstream media such as the New York Times, Washington Post and BBC are revealing a lack of journalistic integrity despite the open accessibility of medical studies to the contrary. Instead the media serves as an echo chamber to continue advancing this international debacle created by our leading health officials.
To understand the miscalculation of deaths that can be directly attributed to Covid-19 we can begin with the CDC’s own website:
“Due to the ongoing COvID-19 pandemic, this system will suspend data collection for the 2020-2021 influenza season.”
In other words, the CDC’s monthly mortality reports will no longer be monitoring actual influenza deaths, which are more often than not also conflated with deaths due to pneumonia. William Briggs, a former professor at Cornell University noted that last summer the CDC ceased counting flu and pneumonia deaths “because, we suppose, of the difficulty telling these deaths from doom deaths [Covid-19].” So how will these deaths be entered into mortality reports?
In early December, an assistant director at Johns Hopkins Medical School’s Department of Applied Economics examined death statistics during the Covid pandemic and previous years. Due to the high percentage of non-Covid deaths decreasing during the pandemic, her conclusion was that these deaths were intentionally being labeled as Covid-1 caused. Her colleague Dr. Yanni Gu summarized the problem:
“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to Covid-19 simply as Covid-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with Covid-19 count as Covid-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why Covid-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”
This irrational discrepancy in causes of death is not solely an American problem. Globally there has been a 98% percent decrease in diagnosed flu cases compared to 2019. Australia alone has recorded a 96% drop off.
There may be a sensible way to explain the decrease in flu and this in turn helps explain the dramatic increase in Covid-19 cases due to inaccurate testing and an infestation of false positives. Given the enormous impact of lockdowns, closing of businesses and public spaces, social distancing and masks, it is feasible that flu rates would decline noticeably. However, then the rise in Covid-19 cases becomes completely nonsensical unless spurious testing is the culprit.
Recently, even the World Health Organization had to acknowledge PCR’s failures. Despite the mincing of words, the WHO reported,
“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus so the Ct [cycle threshold] will be low. Conversely when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect the virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”
Most testing labs are using a cycle threshold of 40 amplifications, consequently the high rate of false positives. This is the reason for cases rising exponentially while actual deaths had leveled in mid-summer until more recently. In the UK, Public Health England states, “if a person has both a negative and positive test, then only their positive test will be counted.” The US does likewise.
University of California virologist Dr. Juliet Morrison stated, ‘I’m shocked that people think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” She recommends a reasonable cutoff at 35, and Dr. Michael Mina at Harvard’s School of Public Heath suggests 30 or less. University of North Carolina’s director of clinical microbiology Melissa Miller has called the application PCR for all situations “completely irresponsible.”
The most damning indictment against every governor across the US who continues to rule on lockdowns, school closures and draconian police enforcement and yet has failed to reign in the plague of erroneous PCR testing in his or her state is found in a recent study by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Using as a low a 25 cycle threshold, 70% of positives were not actual cases because the virus was unable to be cultured. In other words, the virus was already dead.
And yet when PCR cycle thresholds are adjusted, the number of cases plummet. This was observed in efforts made in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada where it was discovered that 90% of those testing positive carried “barely any virus.”
Fortunately some countries are waking up to PCR’s unreliability that was originally perpetuated by a very entrepreneurial German doctor Christian Dosten. Dosten also happens to be an advisor to the Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health. A Portugal appeals court ruled PRC is unreliable for testing Covid-19 and any enforced quarantine based on a positive PCR test would be illegal. As for Dosten and his paper published in the journal Eurosurveillance, it has served as the rationale for widespread PCR use. But the paper is substantially inaccurate but helped serve as a means for Dosten to gain a patent for coronavirus PCR testing. Now 22 leading medical professionals from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences have filed for the paper’s retraction due to “a tremendous number of very serious design flaws… which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The real crime is that none of the above failures were inevitable.
There is no reasonable explanation for miscalculating actual deaths associated with Covid-19 other than sheer stupidity or gross intentional neglect. PCR’s unsuitability to accurately diagnose the presence of active Covid-19, or any other infectious virus, has been well documented for many years. Even PCR’s inventor Dr. Kary Mullis has stated it is unsuited for clinical diagnosis.
Yet despite all of the foreknowledge of these facts, countless people have had their lives devastated by the choices our federal health officials and politicians have made based upon severely flawed science. Unnecessary quarantining, loss of income, lockdowns, and mental stress have adversely effected millions of Americans and people around the world. Again, we might to turn Abbasi’s article in the BMJ:
“… as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”
There are many who argue that the mandating of treatment, prophylactic or otherwise, on a population with capacity to make decisions, is entirely unethical.
Yet we need not delve into debates concerning the morality of mask mandates if the science behind such a decision disproves their efficacy.
There is no doubt the topic is highly polarised and politicised and perhaps hides a bitter truth on the state of the research that lies behind it or its ability to surface to the mainstream view.
It is entirely sensible to invent and trial plausible ways to mitigate transmission of Sars-Cov-2 Virus given its global spread and impact. Masks represent a potential, easily implementable method of influencing transmission of this pathogen.We must however, as always, be loyal to what the science indicates. It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.
Usually, where there lies uncertainty on the value of such global interventions and where the stakes are so high, there should be swift and well-designed studies to seek the answer. This has not been undertaken with regards to masks, until now.
What is obvious is that politics has come first, followed by scientific review.
Previous observational studies within the clinical setting have had mixed results with some suggesting benefit of wearing masks in the reduction of viral transmission1, whilst previous meta-analysis of PPE (Personal Protective equipment) in reducing Influenza spread in Hospitals proved to have no significant benefit2.
It is also unclear whether the observed association between masks and reduction in Covid arises because masks protect uninfected wearers (protective effect) or because transmission is reduced from infected mask wearers (source control).
As pointed out by the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine6
" It is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. "
Their effectiveness in the public in a largely asymptomatic population is a different question requiring its own investigation as currently the World Health Organisation (WHO) admits it lacks evidence that wearing a mask protects healthy persons from SARS-CoV-2
" At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effective- ness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19 "
In a Norwegian study,it stated
" 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week "
The measuring of the effectiveness of masks is not an easy task, with many variables to consider but this was the objective of a recent landmark study and the first randomized controlled trial on the subject. The “Danmask-19 Trial”which included more than 6,000 individuals, aimed to prove effectiveness of surgical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection specifically. This remains the most well-controlled study on the efficacy on masks.
To qualify for the trial, participants had to spend at least three hours per day outside the home and not be required to wear a mask for occupational reasons. At the end of the study, participants reported having spent a median of 4.5 hours per day outside the home.
For one month, participants in the mask group were instructed to wear a mask whenever they were outside their home. Surgical face masks with a filtration rate of 98% were supplied. In accordance with recommendations from the World Health Organization, participants were instructed to change their mask after eight hours.
Antibody testing was performed before the outset and at the end of the study period. At the end of the month, they also submitted a nasal swab sample for PCR testing.
What They Found
Among mask wearers, 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. This suggests adherence makes no difference as they concluded:
" A recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation. "
Interestingly, 1.4% (33 participants) tested positive for antibodies compared to 1.8% (44) of controls. The relevance of this unclear but may suggest improved immunity in those not wearing masks by slightly increase exposure.
During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings. This means that study participants’ exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks. For this reason, they have stated the findings, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
This means, there is no proof that wearing a mask will stop you from contracting the disease but there yet remains any evidence to determine if the masks stop someone with Covid from spreading it.
The primary purpose of the maskis to catch the droplets of viral-containing sputum. If the pathogen is aerosolised as is proposed by the CDC, meaning it can suspend in the air then it would of course circumvent or penetrate the mask. For this reason, there is extra precaution taken in hospitals currently where suspected or confirmed Covid-19 patients are undergoing “Aerosol-generating Procedures”. If this is common route of transmission it would render the masks pointless
During this study participants were instructed on proper face-mask use with ones provided to them because in theory Masks can work well when they’re fully sealed, properly fitted, changed often, and have a filter designed for virus-sized particles. What is adopted by the general public is anything but these things conditions. Many forms of home-made masks have doubtful protection and there use and disposal anything but sanitary. Noticing how many people have masks with personalised designs on suggests they are not replacing them and for everyone one discarded, unless done properly represents a potential biohazard4.
Unless frequently replaced (or washed) these masks represent a constantly updating Petri dish where pathogens accumulate, that the user is touching frequently before handling items in shops, posing a potential for increased transmission.
Another take-home point that you get from this study, is that the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.
The threat globally still remains very low questioning whether intervention is so quintessential when the risk to perceived benefit is still staggeringly small.
Unsurprisingly, they faced challenges when attempting to publish this study, a common theme when the evidence is in contravention to harsh government rules.
They are not the first to suggest the futility of mask wearing in public:
" There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that masks reduce the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of Covid-19 – NE Journal of Medicine. "
" likely negative impacts outweighed any benefits " – NorwegianPublicHealth
" From a population perspective, one can argue that wearing a facemask would neither be worth the public’s money nor outweigh any potential harms " – TheLancetRespiratoryMedicine
This study aimed to answer a single question, does face mask wearing protect you from Covid? However, the decision to mandate the use of masks in public must be a wholesome one where the cost; financially, socially, environmentally and potential harmful physical effects on the user are taken into account.
Here are some side-effects and considerations as published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)7:
The quality and volume of speech between people wearing masks is considerably compromised and they may unconsciously come closer
Wearing a mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes. This generates an impulse to touch the eyes. If your hands are contaminated, you are infecting yourself
Face masks make breathing more difficult. Moreover, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle. Those phenomena increase breathing frequency and deepness, and they may worsen the burden of covid-19 if infected people wearing masks spread more contaminated air. This may also worsen the clinical condition of infected people if the enhanced breathing pushes the viral load down into their lungs
The innate immunity’s efficacy is highly dependent on the viral load.If masks determine a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 can remain active because of the water vapour continuously provided by breathing and captured by the mask fabric, they determine an increase in viral load (by re-inhaling exhaled viruses) and therefore they can cause a defeat of the innate immunity and an increase in infections.
In a study on the use of masks on healthcare workers, in addition to numerous other side effects and complications, they found
" 58.2% of the participants developed trouble breathing on exertion while wearing masks which is probably due to the tight mask causing hypercapnic (high levels of Carbon Dioxide) hypoxic (Low levels of Oxygen) environment leading to numerous physiological alterations such as cardio-respiratory stress and metabolic shift. "
What is becoming clearer with each day is the militancy behind mask-wearing, not as a healthy and logical measure but as a consequence of an ideology routed in fear. Whilst it might soothe the anxieties of the user, it does little else. Emboldened by spineless leaders, based on pseudo-science,a prophylaxis has been forced on the population that is causing more harm than good.
As a complement to the Danish study, data analysis by Yinon Weiss in the Federalist11compares different countries and the times at which they implemented this measure, concluding
" Mask rules appear to have had nothing to do with infection rates, which is what you’d expect if masks don’t work. "
" Weiss points out that, “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.”
As the fear continues to grip nations, governments are bearing down with greater pressures to adopt masks in complete contravention to what the evidence tells us with more people wearing masks more often. We have departed from any scientific sense to highly-charged political circus driven by emotion and ulterior motives.
Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a leader in disease surveillance methods and infectious disease outbreaks, describes the current COVID scientific environment this way:
" After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended."
This virus will not be going away anytime soon therefore we must learning instead how to live with it and mitigate risk by enhancing our immune systems, something that is essential in prospering in the face of a disease threat. We should not abdicate responsibility of our health to Politicians
In an October 28, 2020, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,27 Joseph Ladapo, an associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, points out that we really must accept reality and move on with life, unpredictable as it may be. He writes:
" By paying outsize and scientifically unjustified attention to masking, mask mandates have the unintended consequence of delaying public acceptance of the unavoidable truth. "
In countries with active community transmission and no herd immunity, nothing short of inhumane lockdowns can stop the spread of COVID-19, so the most sensible and sustainable path forward is to learn to live with the virus.
Shifting focus away from mask mandates and toward the reality of respiratory viral spread will free up time and resources to protect the most vulnerable Americans …
Until the reality of viral spread in the U.S. … is accepted, political leaders will continue to feel justified in keeping schools and businesses closed, robbing young people of the opportunity to invest in their futures, and restricting activities that make life worthwhile10.”
The masks are one facet of a program of change that is conditioning people to make fear-based decisions and grow ever sceptical of fellow people.
It is not just a small inconvenience it is a key impediment in preventing us returning to any semblance of normality where we can live and thrive together. They are a constant anchor to panic and a barrier to human communication and emotion. It is a hurdle we must overcome.
Wang X , Ferro EG , Zhou G , et al. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA. 2020. [PMID: 32663246] doi:1001/jama.2020.12897
Saunders-Hastings P, Crispo JAG, Sikora L, Krewski D. Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemics. 2017 Sep;20:1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.epidem.2017.04.003. Epub 2017 Apr 30. PMID: 28487207.
World Health Organization. Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance. 5 June 2020.
Bamber JH, Christmas T. Covid-19: Each discarded face mask is a potential biohazard. BMJ. 2020 May 21;369:m2012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2012. PMID: 32439723.
Covid-19: Important potential side effects of wearing face masks that we should bear in mindBMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2003 (Published 21 May 2020), BMJ 2020;369:m2003
Purushothaman, P.K., Priyangha, E. & Vaidhyswaran, R. Effects of Prolonged Use of Facemask on Healthcare Workers in Tertiary Care Hospital During COVID-19 Pandemic.Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-020-02124-0
Masks Are a Distraction From the Pandemic Reality Viruses inevitably spread, and authorities have oversold face coverings as a preventive measure.By Joseph A. LadapoOct. 28, 2020 7:17 pm ET, WSJ Opinion