Recap
In the previous blog series, we covered what the Bible reveals about the days leading up to and following the opening by our King of the 1st Seal in Rev 6:2. In summary:
13 'pre-Antichrist signs' coming into full maturity; and
'The rider on the white horse' of Rev 6:2, which will likely entail a global coup, orchestrated by means of a campaign of deception and manipulation to coopt the cooperation of the world's most influential people, initiated by Antichrist, probably through his puppets whilst he personally remains hidden in the background.
In this series of posts, we are going to pivot to discuss the potential direct link between the white horse rider and current global affairs.
Something ain't right
No doubt you can sense that all is not right on the world stage. Something dodgy and distressing is up. The ludicrousness of mask mandates is a prime example and great symbol of our anti-science Covid management policies.
But what exactly is going on is hard to define.
Its meant to be that way. The looming danger is no more than a barely distinguishable shape in the mist. Hardly enough to point your finger at without abuse and threats of exile to the lunatic asylum. But that is not for lack of a real problem to be concerned about; rather, it is because of the mists of confusion that obscure it. So lets pierce the mists and give that shape of concern more definite form, shall we?
The Covid-19 pandemic and vaccine mandates in particular (specifically those, and no others are in question here) are worrying for 2 primary reasons:
Deceptive conquest: The whole approach to managing the Covid pandemic - in particular masks, lockdowns, social distancing restrictions, and vaccine mandates - is anti-scientific but we are being force-fed propaganda to convince us it is all necessary and scientific, outright lies. Then, using those lies and deceptions, we are being forced to: endure emergency government powers imposing unconstitutional authoritarian policies; wear masks that harm our health and don't work; endure lockdowns that destroy businesses and jobs and don't work; take vaccines that in many cases are unnecessary and convey no material benefit, convey non-zero risk of death and disability, and have no proven long term safety. These pandemic management policies are systematically subjugating individual and national sovereignty under non-democratically elected, global authoritarian rule.
Foreshadowing Antichrist: There are worrying parallels between these things (and vaccine mandates in particular) to the arc of Antichrist's rise, from the initial appearance of the rider on the white horse through to the evil economic system portrayed in Revelation Ch 13.
In this post, we'll unpack the first point (Deceptive conquest). We'll follow up on the foreshadowing of antichrist in the next post.
The anti-science pandemic management strategy
The latest state of 'Covid Science' reveals clearly that the cardinal elements of the mainstream Covid pandemic management strategy are anti-science. Following below is a very brief summation of the state of the science vs. the state of national pandemic management policies and the mainstream media narrative. At the bottom of this post you will find a very detailed list of sources, all of which are from top-tier expert sources. In case you want to know if there are any credible sources or experts behind the below analysis, you might want to start by checking (i) this list of a sample of world leading experts who challenge the mainstream Covid narrative (especially Vaccine Mandates), and (ii) this list of doctors and experts organising and uniting against various aspects of 'Covid policy orthodoxy' and the mainstream media narrative.
Summary
POLICY ELEMENT | THE SCIENCE | 'COVID ORTHODOXY' - THE POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|---|
1. Mask mandates | They don't work | Mask mandates enforced for all, whether infected or not |
2. Lockdowns | Lockdowns are ineffective and come at great cost, in a respiratory virus pandemic | Lockdowns used to 'flatten the curve', manage viral transmission |
3. Early outpatient treatment | Prophylactic and early outpatient treatment protocols have been proven to reduce hospitalisation and mortality by 60-80% | Early treatment actively opposed, proven treatments vilified |
4. Natural immunity | Natural immunity is more effective against infection, serious infection and transmission, as well as longer lasting, and more resilient to new variants, than vaccine-induced immunity | Natural immunity ignored in policy. Natural immunity treated the same as no immunity. “There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” |
5. Vaccine mandates | Harvard Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff summarises well by saying: “Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical”. | Vaccine mandates being pursued with religious zeal 'as our only hope' and enforced upon even those with natural immunity, despite being unscientific and unethical |
6. Vaccinating children | Vaccinating children conveys no benefit to them, or to society, and is much more dangerous than vaccinating adults. In summary: high risk, no reward. Unscientific, illogical, unethical, evil [1] | Countries are 1 by 1 increasing the pressure to vaccinate children as young as 5 years old. It seems we will soon (2022?) face kids kicked out of school for not vaccinating |
1. Mask Mandates
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
There is no robust evidence that mask-wearing by healthy civilians works to reduce viral transmission | Mask mandates enforced for all, whether infected or not |
Underscoring the point that mask mandates don't work, see here a compilation of senior medical officials (Fauci, Witty, et al) in Jan-June 2020 saying masking is pointless, and below that an excerpt from the WHO website in March 2020 stating the same thing:
2. Lockdowns
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
Lockdowns are counter-productive. Prior to March 2020, most countries had published respiratory virus management strategies, informed by deep scientific research, in which Lockdowns were rejected as ineffective and carrying too high a social cost. For this reason, many globally leading immunologists, virologists, and scientists have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, recommending a more scientifically based pandemic management strategy with far lower cost to society. Studies can now demonstrate that Lockdowns have been one of the greatest peace-time policy failures since World War 2. | Lockdowns used to 'flatten the curve', manage viral transmission |
3. Early outpatient treatment
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
Prophylactic and early treatment protocols that include mostly cheap and easy to obtain therapies (amongst them, Vitamin D, Zinc, monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, Hydroxychronoquine, Corticosteroids) have been proven to reduce hospitalisation and mortality by 60-80% | Early treatment actively opposed. Proven treatments vilified by public health bodies lead by the WHO, and echoed by mainstream media with slanderous disinformation campaigns including proven lies. |
4. Natural immunity
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
At least 91 studies published in various scientific journals support the clear findings that natural immunity is more effective against infection, serious infection and transmission, as well as longer lasting, and more resilient to new variants, than vaccine-induced immunity [1]. "Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus’s outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies" | Denied, minimised, and not factored into policy. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.” This is an outright lie, as the list of 91 (dated Oct 2021) studies cited in the sources section of this document attests. |
List of sources re: ineffectiveness of Natural immunity
5. Vaccine mandates
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
1. Mass, and especially mandated, vaccination is not the scientific medical consensus. Tens of thousands of experts (in virology, epidemiology, immunology, and a range of medical sub-disciplines) and front-line medical workers have challenged the vaccine mandate + lockdowns narrative and strategy. 2. Vaccination is not the only way to protect staff, clients and society. Natural immunity is equally important to beating this pandemic. 3. Vaccination is not the best way to protect staff, clients and society. Natural immunity is more protective than vaccine-induced immunity and >80% of the population already has natural immunity. A blanket ‘vaccinate everybody’ strategy is no longer scientifically sound. 4. The unvaccinated are not dangerous to the vaccinated. This is an outdated and now unscientific (and unethical) line of distinction. 5. Harvard Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff summarises well by saying: “Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical”. See more thorough analysis here: | Vaccine mandates being pursued with religious zeal 'as our salvation' and enforced upon even those with natural immunity, despite being unscientific and unethical |
6. Vaccinating children
THE SCIENCE | POLICY & MEDIA NARRATIVE |
|---|---|
Vaccinating children conveys a near zero benefit to them, and to society, and is much more dangerous than vaccinating adults. In summary: high risk, no reward. Unscientific, illogical, unethical, evil (endangering the young and healthy, to protect the old and unhealthy) | Countries are 1 by 1 increasing the pressure to vaccinate children as young as 5 years old. It seems we will soon (2022?) face kids kicked out of school for not vaccinating |
List of sources re: the scientific illegitimacy and moral bankruptcy of vaccinating children
CONCLUSION
In summary: the approach being taken by South Africa, the USA (excluding divergent states like Florida), the UK, France, Italy, etc to managing this pandemic is clearly not one with the objective of public health and an approach informed by the science. The following are clear signals that science is being ignored:
Mask wearing (that doesn't work) mandated for all, including the healthy and children.
Lockdowns (that don't work) and restricted social movements used liberally, at great cost to the economy.
Early treatment (that does work) legally or functionally banned or severely hampered.
Vaccines mandated, with significant sanctions (e.g. losing jobs) for those who refuse to receive the experimental Covid gene therapy treatment.
Vaccinating kids despite the all risk, zero benefit scenario.
In countries where this diabolical cocktail is in play, clearly the goal is something other than public health. The question is 'What?'. Is it random / incompetence? Or is it orchestrated? We'll tackle that in the next blog post...
RECENT POSTS
SOURCES:
(I) Sources re: ineffectiveness of mask mandates
Non-pharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings—personal protective and environmental measures Policy Review by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “We did not find evidence that surgical-type face masks are effective in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza transmission, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility.” (Xiao et al., May 2020)
Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19 Interim Guidance by The World Health Organisation “At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.” (WHO, June 2020)
Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses Systemic Review by Cochrane “The pooled results of [67] randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.” (Jefferson et al., November 2020)
Masking lack of evidence with politics Review by The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford “It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.” (Jefferson & Heneghan, 2020)
Effectiveness of adding a mask recommendation to other public health measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in Danish mask wearers Randomized control trial reveals a non-statistically significant difference between two groups of participants, one requested to wear a mask, the other not wearing a mask. “masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask” “The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection.” (Bundgaardet al., March 2020)
Mask mandate and use efficacy in state-level COVID-19 containment “Case growth was not significantly different between [mask] mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal.” (Guerra & Guerra, May 2020)
(II) Sources re: ineffectiveness of Lockdowns
EU Influenza Pandemic Preparedness plans - https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/preparedness/influenza-pandemic-preparedness-plans
The Great Barrington Declaration - https://gbdeclaration.org/
The below research is copied directly from the American Institute of Economic Research: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/
1. “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
2. “Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”
3. “Estimation of the current development of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Germany” by Matthias an der Heiden, Osamah Hamouda. Robert Koch-Institut, April 22, 2020.
“In general, however, not all infected people develop symptoms, not all those who develop symptoms go to a doctor’s office, not all who go to the doctor are tested and not all who test positive are also recorded in a data collection system. In addition, there is a certain amount of time between all these individual steps, so that no survey system, no matter how good, can make a statement about the current infection process without additional assumptions and calculations.”
4. Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”
5. “Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
6. Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”
7. “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
8. “Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
9. “Trajectory of COVID-19 epidemic in Europe” by Marco Colombo, Joseph Mellor, Helen M Colhoun, M. Gabriela M. Gomes, Paul M McKeigue. MedRxiv Pre-print. Posted September 28, 2020. “The classic Susceptible-Infected-Recovered model formulated by Kermack and McKendrick assumes that all individuals in the population are equally susceptible to infection. From fitting such a model to the trajectory of mortality from COVID-19 in 11 European countries up to 4 May 2020 Flaxman et al. concluded that ‘major non-pharmaceutical interventions — and lockdowns in particular — have had a large effect on reducing transmission’. We show that relaxing the assumption of homogeneity to allow for individual variation in susceptibility or connectivity gives a model that has better fit to the data and more accurate 14-day forward prediction of mortality. Allowing for heterogeneity reduces the estimate of ‘counterfactual’ deaths that would have occurred if there had been no interventions from 3.2 million to 262,000, implying that most of the slowing and reversal of COVID-19 mortality is explained by the build-up of herd immunity. The estimate of the herd immunity threshold depends on the value specified for the infection fatality ratio (IFR): a value of 0.3% for the IFR gives 15% for the average herd immunity threshold.”
10. “Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions” by Ken Rice, Ben Wynne, Victoria Martin, Graeme J Ackland. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.”
11. “Modeling social distancing strategies to prevent SARS-CoV2 spread in Israel- A Cost-effectiveness analysis” by Amir Shlomai, Ari Leshno, Ella H Sklan, Moshe Leshno. MedRxiv Pre-Print. September 20, 2020. “A nationwide lockdown is expected to save on average 274 (median 124, interquartile range (IQR): 71-221) lives compared to the ‘testing, tracing, and isolation’ approach. However, the ICER will be on average $45,104,156 (median $ 49.6 million, IQR: 22.7-220.1) to prevent one case of death. Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects. These findings should assist decision-makers in dealing with additional waves of this pandemic.”
12. Too Little of a Good Thing A Paradox of Moderate Infection Control, by Ted Cohen and Marc Lipsitch. Epidemiology. 2008 Jul; 19(4): 588–589. “The link between limiting pathogen exposure and improving public health is not always so straightforward. Reducing the risk that each member of a community will be exposed to a pathogen has the attendant effect of increasing the average age at which infections occur. For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.”
13. “Smart Thinking, Lockdown and COVID-19: Implications for Public Policy” by Morris Altman. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2020. “The response to COVID-19 has been overwhelmingly to lockdown much of the world’s economies in order to minimize death rates as well as the immediate negative effects of COVID-19. I argue that such policy is too often de-contextualized as it ignores policy externalities, assumes death rate calculations are appropriately accurate and, and as well, assumes focusing on direct Covid-19 effects to maximize human welfare is appropriate. As a result of this approach current policy can be misdirected and with highly negative effects on human welfare. Moreover, such policies can inadvertently result in not minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities) at all, especially in the long run. Such misdirected and sub-optimal policy is a product of policy makers using inappropriate mental models which are lacking in a number of key areas; the failure to take a more comprehensive macro perspective to address the virus, using bad heuristics or decision-making tools, relatedly not recognizing the differential effects of the virus, and adopting herding strategy (follow-the-leader) when developing policy. Improving the decision-making environment, inclusive of providing more comprehensive governance and improving mental models could have lockdowns throughout the world thus yielding much higher levels of human welfare.”
14. “SARS-CoV-2 waves in Europe: A 2-stratum SEIRS model solution” by Levan Djaparidze and Federico Lois. MedRxiv pre-print, October 23, 2020. “We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (i.e. schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021). We also modeled how average isolation levels change the probability of getting infected for a single individual that isolates differently than average. That led us to realize disease damages to third parties due to virus spreading can be calculated and to postulate that an individual has the right to avoid isolation during epidemics (SARS-CoV-2 or any other).”
15. “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. CESifo Economic Studies March 29, 2021. “The lockdowns in most Western countries have thrown the world into the most severe recession since World War II and the most rapidly developing recession ever seen in mature market economies. They have also caused an erosion of fundamental rights and the separation of powers in a large part of the world as both democratic and autocratic regimes have misused their emergency powers and ignored constitutional limits to policy-making (Bjørnskov and Voigt, 2020). It is therefore important to evaluate whether and to which extent the lockdowns have worked as officially intended: to suppress the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent deaths associated with it. Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.”
16.”Four Stylized Facts about COVID-19” (alt-link) by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha. NBER working paper 27719, August 2020. “One of the central policy questions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is the question of which non-pharmeceutical interventions governments might use to influence the transmission of the disease. Our ability to identify empirically which NPI’s have what impact on disease transmission depends on there being enough independent variation in both NPI’s and disease transmission across locations as well as our having robust procedures for controlling for other observed and unobserved factors that might be influencing disease transmission. The facts that we document in this paper cast doubt on this premise…. The existing literature has concluded that NPI policy and social distancing have been essential to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the number of deaths due to this deadly pandemic. The stylized facts established in this paper challenge this conclusion.”
17. “How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe?” by Kata Karáth. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “Belarus’s beleaguered government remains unfazed by covid-19. President Aleksander Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events like the Belarusian football league or the Victory Day parade. Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe—just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million with over 73 000 confirmed cases.”
18. “Association between living with children and outcomes from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort study of 12 million adults in England” by Harriet Forbes, Caroline E Morton, Seb Bacon et al., by MedRxiv, November 2, 2020. “Among 9,157,814 adults ≤65 years, living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92). Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with a small increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.13), but not associated with other COVID-19 outcomes. Living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-COVID-19 causes. Among 2,567,671 adults >65 years there was no association between living with children and outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2. We observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure.”
19. “Exploring inter-country coronavirus mortality“ By Trevor Nell, Ian McGorian, Nick Hudson. Pandata, July 7, 2020. “For each country put forward as an example, usually in some pairwise comparison and with an attendant single cause explanation, there are a host of countries that fail the expectation. We set out to model the disease with every expectation of failure. In choosing variables it was obvious from the outset that there would be contradictory outcomes in the real world. But there were certain variables that appeared to be reliable markers as they had surfaced in much of the media and pre-print papers. These included age, co-morbidity prevalence and the seemingly light population mortality rates in poorer countries than that in richer countries. Even the worst among developing nations—a clutch of countries in equatorial Latin America—have seen lighter overall population mortality than the developed world. Our aim therefore was not to develop the final answer, rather to seek common cause variables that would go some way to providing an explanation and stimulating discussion. There are some very obvious outliers in this theory, not the least of these being Japan. We test and find wanting the popular notions that lockdowns with their attendant social distancing and various other NPIs confer protection.”
20. “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, 19 November 2020. “Higher Covid death rates are observed in the [25/65°] latitude and in the [−35/−125°] longitude ranges. The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate. Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.”
21. “States with the Fewest Coronavirus Restrictions” by Adam McCann. WalletHub, Oct 6, 2020. "This study assesses and ranks stringencies in the United States by states. The results are plotted against deaths per capita and unemployment. The graphics reveal no relationship in stringency level as it relates to the death rates, but finds a clear relationship between stringency and unemployment.
22. The Mystery of Taiwan: Commentary on the Lancet Study of Taiwan and New Zealand, by Amelia Janaskie. American Institute for Economic Research, November 2, 2020. “The Taiwanese case reveals something extraordinary about pandemic response. As much as public-health authorities imagine that the trajectory of a new virus can be influenced or even controlled by policies and responses, the current and past experiences of coronavirus illustrate a different point. The severity of a new virus might have far more to do with endogenous factors within a population rather than the political response. According to the lockdown narrative, Taiwan did almost everything ‘wrong’ but generated what might in fact be the best results in terms of public health of any country in the world.”
23. “Predicting the Trajectory of Any COVID19 Epidemic From the Best Straight Line” by Michael Levitt, Andrea Scaiewicz, Francesco Zonta. MedRxiv, Pre-print, June 30, 2020. “Comparison of locations with over 50 deaths shows all outbreaks have a common feature: H(t) defined as loge(X(t)/X(t-1)) decreases linearly on a log scale, where X(t) is the total number of Cases or Deaths on day, t (we use ln for loge). The downward slopes vary by about a factor of three with time constants (1/slope) of between 1 and 3 weeks; this suggests it may be possible to predict when an outbreak will end. Is it possible to go beyond this and perform early prediction of the outcome in terms of the eventual plateau number of total confirmed cases or deaths? We test this hypothesis by showing that the trajectory of cases or deaths in any outbreak can be converted into a straight line. Specifically Y(t)≡−ln(ln(N/X(t)),is a straight line for the correct plateau value N, which is determined by a new method, Best-Line Fitting (BLF). BLF involves a straight-line facilitation extrapolation needed for prediction; it is blindingly fast and amenable to optimization. We find that in some locations that entire trajectory can be predicted early, whereas others take longer to follow this simple functional form.”
24. “Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response” by John Gibson. New Zealand Economic Papers, August 25, 2020. “The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
25. “Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”
26. “Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19: A Tale of Three Models” by Vincent Chin, John P.A. Ioannidis, Martin A. Tanner, Sally Cripps, MedXriv, July 22, 2020. “Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
27. “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P.A. Ioannidis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 5, 2021. “Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI ‐5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (‐12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.”
28. “Lockdown Effects on Sars-CoV-2 Transmission – The evidence from Northern Jutland” by Kasper Planeta Kepp and Christian Bjørnskov. MedXriv, January 4, /2021.”The exact impact of lockdowns and other NPIs on Sars-CoV-2 transmission remain a matter of debate as early models assumed 100% susceptible homogenously transmitting populations, an assumption known to overestimate counterfactual transmission, and since most real epidemiological data are subject to massive confounding variables. Here, we analyse the unique case-controlled epidemiological dataset arising from the selective lockdown of parts of Northern Denmark, but not others, as a consequence of the spread of mink-related mutations in November 2020. Our analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates. Direct spill-over to neighbour municipalities or the simultaneous mass testing do not explain this. Instead, control of infection pockets possibly together with voluntary social behaviour was apparently effective before the mandate, explaining why the infection decline occurred before and in both the mandated and non-mandated areas. The data suggest that efficient infection surveillance and voluntary compliance make full lockdowns unnecessary at least in some circumstances.”
29. “A First Literature Review: Lockdowns Only Had a Small Effect on COVID-19” by Jonas Herby, SSRN, January 6, 2021. “How important was the economic lockdowns in the spring of 2020 in curbing the COVID-19 pan-demic and how important was the lockdown in comparison to voluntary changes in behavior? In the spring, the overall social response to the COVID-19 pandemic consisted of a mix of voluntary and government mandated behavior changes. Voluntary behavior changes occurred on the basis of information, such as the number of people infected, the number of COVID-19-deaths and on the basis of the signal value associated with the official lockdown combined with appeals to the population to change its behavior. Mandated behavior changes took place as a result of the ban-ning of certain activities deemed non-essential. Studies which differentiate between the two types of behavioral change find that, on average, mandated behavior changes accounts for only 9% (median: 0%) of the total effect on the growth of the pandemic stemming from behavioral changes. The remaining 91% (median: 100%) of the effect was due to voluntary behavior changes. This is excluding the effect of curfew and facemasks, which was not employed in all countries.”
30. “The effect of interventions on COVID-19” by Kristian Soltesz, Fredrik Gustafsson, Toomas Timpka, Joakim Jaldén, Carl Jidling, Albin Heimerson, Thomas B. Schön, Armin Spreco, Joakim Ekberg, Örjan Dahlström, Fredrik Bagge Carlson, Anna Jöud & Bo Bernhardsson . Nature, December 23, 202. “Flaxman et al. took on the challenge of estimating the effectiveness of five categories of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)—social distancing encouraged, self isolation, school closures, public events banned, and complete lockdown—on the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On the basis of mortality data collected between January and early May 2020, they concluded that only one of these, the lockdown, had been effective in 10 out of the 11 European countries that were studied. However, here we use simulations with the original model code to suggest that the conclusions of Flaxman et al. with regard to the effectiveness of individual NPIs are not justified. Although the NPIs that were considered have indisputably contributed to reducing the spread of the virus, our analysis indicates that the individual effectiveness of these NPIs cannot be reliably quantified.”
31. “Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study,” by R. F. Savaris, G. Pumi, J. Dalzochio & R. Kunst. Nature, March 5, 2021. “A recent mathematical model has suggested that staying at home did not play a dominant role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. The second wave of cases in Europe, in regions that were considered as COVID-19 controlled, may raise some concerns. Our objective was to assess the association between staying at home (%) and the reduction/increase in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in several regions in the world…. After preprocessing the data, 87 regions around the world were included, yielding 3741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis. Only 63 (1.6%) comparisons were significant. With our results, we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34…. We were not able to explain the variation of deaths/million in different regions in the world by social isolation, herein analyzed as differences in staying at home, compared to baseline. In the restrictive and global comparisons, only 3% and 1.6% of the comparisons were significantly different, respectively.”
32. “Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic” by Christopher R. Berry, Anthony Fowler, Tamara Glazer, Samantha Handel-Meyer, and Alec MacMillen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, April 13, 2021. “We study the health, behavioral, and economic effects of one of the most politically controversial policies in recent memory, shelter-in-place orders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies have claimed that shelter-in-place orders saved thousands of lives, but we reassess these analyses and show that they are not reliable. We find that shelter-in-place orders had no detectable health benefits, only modest effects on behavior, and small but adverse effects on the economy. To be clear, our study should not be interpreted as evidence that social distancing behaviors are not effective. Many people had already changed their behaviors before the introduction of shelter-in-place orders, and shelter-in-place orders appear to have been ineffective precisely because they did not meaningfully alter social distancing behavior.”
33. “Inferring UK COVID‐19 fatal infection trajectories from daily mortality data: Were infections already in decline before the UK lockdowns?” by Simon Wood. Biometic Practice, March 30, 2021. “What the results show is that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable openly available data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in the United Kingdom began before the first full lockdown, suggesting that the measures preceding lockdown may have been sufficient to bring the epidemic under control, and that community infections, unlike deaths, were probably at a low level well before the first lockdown was eased. Such a scenario would be consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the United Kingdom, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown.”
34. “COVID-19 Lockdown Policies: An Interdisciplinary Review” by Oliver Robinson, SSRN (in review) February 21, 2020. “Biomedical evidence from the early months of the pandemic suggests that lockdowns were associated with a reduced viral reproductive rate, but that less restrictive measures also had a similar effect. Lockdowns are associated with reduced mortality in epidemiological modelling studies but not in studies based on empirical data from the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological research supports the proposition that lengthy lockdowns may exacerbate stressors such as social isolation and unemployment that have been shown to be strong predictors of falling ill if exposed to a respiratory virus. Studies at the economic level of analysis points to the possibility that deaths associated with economic harms or underfunding of other health issues may outweigh the deaths that lockdowns save, and that the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for treating other conditions. Research on ethics in relation to lockdowns points to the inevitability of value judgements in balancing different kinds of harms and benefits than lockdowns cause.”
35. “Covid Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature” by Douglas W. Allen. Working paper, Simon Fraser University, April 2021. “An examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on assump- tions that were false, and which tended to over-estimate the benefits and under- estimate the costs of lockdown. As a result, most of the early cost/benefit studies arrived at conclusions that were refuted later by data, and which rendered their cost/benefit findings incorrect. Research done over the past six months has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid-19 deaths. Generally speaking, the ineffectiveness of lockdown stems from volun- tary changes in behavior. Lockdown jurisdictions were not able to prevent non- compliance, and non-lockdown jurisdictions benefited from voluntary changes in behavior that mimicked lockdowns. The limited effectiveness of lockdowns ex- plains why, after one year, the unconditional cumulative deaths per million, and the pattern of daily deaths per million, is not negatively correlated with the strin- gency of lockdown across countries. Using a cost/benefit method proposed by Professor Bryan Caplan, and using two extreme assumptions of lockdown effec- tiveness, the cost/benefit ratio of lockdowns in Canada, in terms of life-years saved, is between 3.6–282. That is, it is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in Canada’s history.”
(III) Sources re: effectiveness of early outpatient treatment
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 64 studies - https://ivmmeta.com/
Compilation of studies supporting effectiveness of HCQ - https://c19hcq.com/
Pathophysical Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection “Therapeutic approaches based on these principles include 1) reduction of reinoculation, 2) combination antiviral therapy, 3) immunomodulation, 4) antiplatelet/antithrombotic therapy, and 5) administration of oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine.” (McCullough, 2020)
Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19 “The complex and multifaceted pathophysiology of life-threatening COVID-19 illness including viral mediated organ damage, cytokine storm, and thrombosis warrants early interventions to address all components of the devastating illness. “A multipronged therapeutic approach includes 1) adjuvant nutraceuticals [supplements and vitamins ], 2) combination intracellular anti-infective therapy [to reduce the multiplication of the virus], 3) inhaled/oral corticosteroids [to treat inflammation], 4) antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants [to treat blood clots], 5) supportive care including supplemental oxygen, monitoring, and telemedicine.” (McCullough et al., 2020)
Early ambulatory multidrug therapy reduces hospitalization and death in high-risk patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) “our early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6% and 74.9% reductions in hospitalization and death respectively, “Prompt ambulatory treatment should be offered to high-risk patients with COVID-19 instead of watchful watching and late-stage hospitalization for salvage therapies.” (Procter et al., 2021)
SARS-CoV-2 infection and the COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action for therapy and interventions to resolve the crisis of hospitalization, death, and handle the aftermath “This population [high-risk patients] should be our highest priority and should be tended to with patient treatment guides, immediate access to research protocols, and engagement with physicians either by telemedicine or in person who are familiar with the signals of benefit and the safety information available for these commonly prescribed drugs [19]. Access to monoclonal antibodies available under Emergency Use Authorization should be ensured and featured by emergency departments, urgent care clinics, and nursing homes at the point of care where high-risk patients receive a positive SARS-CoV-2 result” (McCullough & Vijay, 2021)
Review of the emerging evidence demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin in the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 “Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials [Ivermectin taken preventatively prior to possible infection] report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin.” (Kory et al., 2021)
Ivermectin for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to inform clinical guidelines “Low-certainty evidence found ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%” “Meta-analysis of 15 trials found ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin” “Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.” (Bryant et al., 2021)
(IV) Sources re: effectiveness of Natural Immunity
Comprehensive library list of 91 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity, with abstract of each: https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ Below, a brief sample:
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, Shrestha, 2021 “Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52,238 employees in an American healthcare system. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”
SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020 “Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein…showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021 “A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons…the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)…this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, Pilz, 2021 Researchers recorded “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).
(V) Sources re: the legitimacy of Vaccine Mandates
See below document which expands upon the summary notes, with c50 sources referenced in the document, mostly scientific papers or quotes from experts
(VI) Sources re: the need to, and safety of, vaccinating children
The below is copied from the PANDA website: https://www.pandata.org/covid-vaccine-for-children-risks/
"1. Children and young people have a mostly mild or asymptomatic presentation when infected with SARS-CoV-2. They are at near-zero risk of death from Covid-19.
2. There is an unusually high rate of reported adverse events and deaths following the Covid-19 vaccines compared with other vaccines. Some adverse events are more common in the young, especially myocarditis. Where potential harm exists from an innovation and little is known about it, the precautionary principle dictates first do no harm.
3. Medium and long-term safety data about the COVID-19 vaccines are still lacking. Children and young people have a remaining life expectancy of 55 to 80 years. Unknown harmful long-term effects are far more consequential for the young than for the elderly.
4. Vaccination policies rely on expected benefits clearly outweighing the risk of adverse events from the vaccination. The risk-benefit analysis for the Covid-19 vaccines points to a high potential risk versus no benefit for children and young people.
5. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children to adults is minimal and adults in contact with children do not have higher Covid-19 mortality.
6. It is unethical to put children and young people at risk to protect adults. Altruistic behaviours such as organ and blood donation are all voluntary.
7. Several prophylactic treatments as well as the Covid-19 vaccines are available to high-risk individuals so they can protect themselves.
8. Natural immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 is broad and robust and more effective than vaccine immunity, especially in combating variants. Children and young people are safer with natural immunity.
9. There are several prophylactic (preventive) protocols and effective treatments available to children and young people with comorbidities.
10. Vaccinating children and young people is not necessary for herd immunity. After a year and a half of the pandemic, most people either have pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses, have recovered from Covid-19 or have been vaccinated.
There is therefore no medical or public health case for the mass vaccination of children and young people, or for coercive or restrictive measures affecting those who are unvaccinated. For the young, natural exposure to the virus instead of the vaccine is the right thing to do for the greater common good."
(VII) Sample list of globally leading scientists and experts opposed to Covid 'policy orthodoxy' (esp. vaccine mandates) during a pandemic
Prof Luc Montagnier
Nobel Prize winner, Virologist (discovered HIV)
French virologist Joint recipient, with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen, of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus. Has worked as a researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and as a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China. Co-founder of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention. Co-directs the Program for International Viral Collaboration. Founder and a former president of the Houston-based World Foundation for Medical Research and Prevention. He has received more than 20 major awards. He is also a member of the Académie Nationale de Médecine. e was awarded the honorary Doctor of Humane Letters (L.H.D.) from Whittier College in 2010.
Dr. Robert Malone
Instrumental figure in invention of mRNA tech.
Virologist & Immunologist Highly published medical scientist, key figure in the pioneering of the mRNA vaccine platform used to develop the Covid mRNA vaccines (https://www.scirp.org/journal/DetailedInforOfEditorialBoard.aspx?personID=5968)
Dr Geert Vanden Bossche
One of world’s leading Vaccinologists
Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness.
Dr Michael Yeadon
Former Chief of Science, Pfizer
Pharmacologist
* Former Pfizer Chief of Science and VP of the allergy and respiratory research division of the drug company Pfizer * British pharmacologist, Degree in biochemistry in toxicology * Research based Phd in respiratory pharmacology * 32 years experience working for mostly pharmaceutical companies * 10 years experience as a biotechnology entrepreneur and CEO * Co-founder and former chief executive officer of biotechnology company Ziarco, which he sold to Novartis in 2017
Dr Peter McCullough
One of most published Cardiologists in the world Epidemiologist
*American cardiologist. * He was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center. * He was a professor at Texas A&M University. * He is editor-in-chief of the journals Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiorenal Medicine. * He has 600 peer reviewed publications in the national library of medicine. * He has over 45 publications on covid 19. * Most published person in the world and in history in the field of Cardio and renal connection * President of the cardio-renal society
Dr Richard Fleming
Cardiologist Doctor of law
PhD, MD, JD Cardiologist, Nuclear Cardiologist Certified in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Juris Prudence Doctor of Law Researcher Inventor Author
Linda Wastila Phd
Research Professor (Pharmacy)
Professor and Parke-Davis Endowed Chair of Geriatric Pharmacotherapy at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy. Expert, medications and their safety Director of Research, The Peter Lamy Center on Drug Therapy and Aging BSPharm, MSPH, MA, PhD
Peter Doshi Phd
British Medical Journal Editor, Professor (Pharmacy)
Associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ.
Dr Tess Lawrie
WHO Advisor
Research in evidence based medicine
MD, Phd External advisor to WHO on pandemic strategy Director of evidence-based medicine consultancy Director of EbMC Squared CiC - a Community Interest Company that conducts research mandated by the public and funded by public donations
Dr Martin Kulldorff
Harvard Epidemiologist
Professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. His research centers on developing and applying new disease surveillance methods for post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance and for the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks.
Pr. Jay Bhattacharya
Stanford Epidemiologist Professor (healthcare economics)
Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute. He holds courtesy appointments as Professor in Economics and in Health Research and Policy. He directs the Stanford Center on the Demography of Health and Aging.
Professor Marty Makary
John Hopkins Prof. of public health Surgical oncologist Gastrointestinal laparoscopic surgeon
Professor of medicine, John Hopkins University school of medicine Dr. Makary is a surgical oncologist and chief of the Johns Hopkins Islet Transplant Center. He is a clinical lead for the Johns Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub and serves as Executive Director of Improving Wisely, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation project to lower health care costs in the U.S. by creating measures of appropriateness in health care. Dr. Makary’s research focuses on the creation and evaluation of new health care innovations. He is the creator of the Surgery Checklist, publishing its first description and later served on the W.H.O. Safe Surgery Saves Lives committee. He led the W.H.O. workgroup to create global measures of surgical quality. Dr. Makary has published over 200 scientific articles
Dr Sucharit Bhakdi
One of most seasoned Immunobiology and Epigenetics PHds in the world Microbiologist Immunologist
Sucharit Bhakdi was born in Washington, DC, and educated at schools in Switzerland, Egypt, and Thailand. He studied medicine at the University of Bonn in Germany, where he received his MD in 1970. He was a post-doctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology and Epigenetics in Freiburg from 1972 to 1976, and at The Protein Laboratory in Copenhagen from 1976 to 1977. He joined the Institute of Medical Microbiology at Giessen University in 1977 and was appointed associate professor in 1982. He was named chair of Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz in 1990, where he remained until his retirement in 2012. Dr. Bhakdi has published over three hundred articles in the fields of immunology, bacteriology, virology, and parasitology, for which he has received numerous awards and the Order of Merit of Rhineland-Palatinate.
(VIII) Sample list of scientist, expert and medical practitioner groups challenging Covid orthodoxy
International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists (Global group, >12,000)
Physicians Declaration, Global Covid Summit– Rome, Italy - accusing global covid policy makers of crimes against humanity, for forcing vaccine mandates, breaching the Nuremburg Code, misleading the public on Vaccine safety and efficacy, and spreading disinformation on effective alternative treatments with proven credentials, like Ivermectin
Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth (Canada, 717 signatories)
The CPSO (Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons) are bulluing doctors into silence regarding appropriate and effective Covid treatments for patients, and safety of vaccines
Doctors for Covid Ethics (111 Mostly Europe doctors and scientists from 30 countries)
Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns. Seeking to uphold medical ethics, patient safety and human rights in response to COVID-19
World Doctors Alliance (Global group, unknown size)
World Doctors Alliance (WDA) is a collaboration between medical professionals across the world to address some the most urgent and important issues surrounding the pandemic.
Doctors for Truth (Spain, c600)
600 Doctors from across Spain and Germany came together to declare their grave concerns over the management of the pandemic by official health authorities, including: (1) testing inacuracy; (2) data manipulation; (3) suppression of proven, effective treatments that are alternatives to vaccines; (4) forcing vaccines with unproven safety
Unvaccinated health care workers (USA - New York State, >40000)
40-50,000 frontline healthcare workers in New York state alone opted to rather get fired than get vaccinated
Comments