Poke Salad Annie Foo Fighters and Tony Joe White
"Yet in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposit danger that public policy itself could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." President Dwight Eisenhower (minute 4)
"The supine capitulation to a de facto police state in a country long regarded as a cradle of liberty has been one of the most depressing spectacles I’ve ever witnessed." Lionel Shriver
"To the politicians, who believe those corrupt people, these facts are hereby offered as a lifeline, that can help you readjust your course of action and start the long overdue public scientific discussion and not go down with those charlatans and criminals. ~ Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
“I think it’s all ridiculous, we should never have been in lockdown. All the people who were vulnerable should have been helped and kept home safe.
“And all the rest of us, I’m 83, I don’t give a sod.
“I look at it this way, I’ve not got all that many years left of me and I’m not going to be fastened in a house when the Government have got it all wrong.
“We need… how can we get the country on its feet? Money-wise? Where’s all the money?
“By the end of this year there’s going to be millions of people unemployed and you know who’s going to pay for it? All the young ones. Not me because I’m going to be dead.”
To that point, in perhaps the most devastating paragraph of the 689-word statement, Bobulinski writes that Hunter Biden also referred to his father as “my chairman and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing.”
“I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business,” says Bobulinski, who was the CEO of the company being formed. “I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.”
Bobulinski, a former wrestler at Penn State University who spent four years in the Navy, insists he has voluminous evidence to back up his explosive charges, reportedly including documents, e-mails, messages and other proof.
Late Wednesday night, he uploaded many to a file- sharing service.
He also says that he turned over all his evidence to two Senate committees Wednesday that requested it.
Two new peer-reviewed studies are showing a sharp drop in mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The drop is seen in all groups, including older patients and those with underlying conditions, suggesting that physicians are getting better at helping patients survive their illness.
"We find that the death rate has gone down substantially," says Leora Horwitz, a doctor who studies population health at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine and an author on one of the studies, which looked at thousands of patients from March to August.
Studying changes in death rate is tricky because although the overall U.S. death rate for COVID-19 seems to be dropping, the drop coincides with a change in whom the disease is sickening.
.. He has conducted his own research of 21,000 hospitalized cases in England, which also found a similarly sharp drop in the death rate. The work, which will soon appear in the journal Critical Care Medicine and was released earlier in preprint, shows an unadjusted drop in death rates among hospitalized patients of around 20 percentage points since the worst days of the pandemic.
Around two weeks ago, Dr. Mike Ryan, the executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme, stated the WHO estimated that 750 million people have been infected worldwide:
“An estimated 750 million, or 10 per cent of the world’s population, have been infected by Covid-19, World Health Organisation (WHO) official Dr Mike Ryan has said.”
At the time of his statement, there had been just over one million deaths recorded worldwide (1,034,068 to be fully accurate). Using these two figures, the IFR can be easily calculated. It is 1,034,068/750,000,000 = 0.138%. How accurate is this figure? Well, who knows for certain? It is probably as accurate as most other current estimates.
Yet even using these WHO-endorsed figures is apparently verboten in the eyes of the Facebook ‘fact checkers’. Another site that reported these numbers also found its story flagged as “misinformation” by Facebook, and has subsequently accused the social media giant of “selling falsehoods and re-writing history.”
One wide-ranging piece of work, a review of 61 studies of Covid-19 deaths covering 51 countries, was done recently by John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at Stanford University, and a man described as “a lion of medical science.” The article, peer-reviewed and published by the WHO, concluded that the infection fatality rate currently stands at 0.23%, and suggested it would fall further, warning: “The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.”
Who would one rather believe on this matter? A Harvard-trained infectious disease specialist, author of some of the most cited articles in medical history, and a man who the Atlantic has called “one of the most influential scientists alive”? Or some ‘fact checkers’ who, I’m confidently guessing, don’t have quite such a track record or expertise?
It is true the fatality rates currently differ widely from country to country, influenced by other factors such as age and health. In Singapore, there have been nearly 60,000 ‘cases’ recorded, with 28 deaths. This represents a case fatality rate of 0.02%
Another paper by Prof. Ioannidis looking at the global Infection Fatality Rate came to the conclusion that it stood, as of October 7, at 0.15‐0.20%.
Of course, this figure is for the entire population, including the elderly, and those at higher risk because they have other serious medical conditions. His latest estimate of the IFR in the population aged under 70 is 0.04%. Which is four in 10,000, and this figure includes people with serious underlying medical conditions.
What would it be for healthy people under 70? Almost certainly a lot less, but I have seen no good figures on this.
75% of WHO funding comes from indepenedent donors the biggest of which is Bill Gates--Event 201, oct 18, 2019
Potential for cross-reactive immunity
In one study, SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ T cells were also identified in about 40 to 60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘‘common cold’’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2 . Another study also showed cross-reactive memory T cells in patients who had recovered from SARS-CoV 17 years before (n=23), and also in individuals with no history of SARS infection (n=37) . These studies were done in small numbers of patients and need verification.
Potential for long-term immunity
Early research suggests that the antibodies in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 dropped significantly within 2 to 3 months [21,22], causing concern that humoral immunity against the virus may decline rapidly. However, it is a normal part of the immune response that antibody levels fall after an infection has resolved . For example, in seasonal coronavirus infections, antibodies start to decline at about a week after infection and typically only last for about a year . It should also be noted that memory T and B cells are formed after infection [25,26]; these can be reactivated when another infection with the same virus occurs and could provide long-lasting immunity. A preliminary study that has not yet undergone peer review has shown that memory T and B cells were found in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms who had recovered and that these cells persisted, suggesting the potential for longer-term immunity .
SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells have also been detected in exposed seronegative healthy individuals (relatives of confirmed cases), which may indicate asymptomatic infection. One study has shown that ~93% of “exposed asymptomatic” individuals had a T cell response to SARS-CoV-2, despite seropositivity in only 60% of cases . Asymptomatic infections may therefore be more common, and antibody testing alone may underestimate the true prevalence of the infection or population immunity. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were found in most of the convalescent patients in this study, which is a promising sign that infection may give rise to immunity 
- There is some evidence of cross-reactivity with seasonal/endemic coronaviruses
- Emerging studies suggest that all or a majority of people with COVID-19 develop a strong and broad T cell response, both CD4 and CD8, and some have a memory phenotype, which bodes well for potential longer-term immunity
- Understanding the roles of different subsets of T cells in protection or pathogenesis is crucial for preventing and treating COVID-19
The United Nations predicts that the pandemic recession could plunge as many as 420 million people into extreme poverty, defined as earning less than $2 a day. The disruption will be particularly notable in the poorest countries. The UN has forecast that Africa could have 30 million more people in poverty. A study by the International Growth Centre spoke of “staggering” implications with 9.1% of the population descending into extreme poverty as savings are drained, with two-thirds of this due to lockdown. The loss of remittances has cost developing economies billions more income.
Latin America had seen its poverty rate drop from 45 to 30% over the past two decades, but now nearly 45 million, according to the UN, are being plunged into destitution as a result of the novel coronavirus pandemic. In Mexico alone, COVID-19 has caused at least 16 million more people to fall into extreme poverty, according to a study by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
Coronavirus is deadly and, unfortunately, it is now spreading exponentially in the UK. It is our responsibility to act to prevent more hospitalisations, more deaths and more economic damage". (We are sorry for your imprisonment but it is for the good of all)
To be clear, our strategy is to suppress the virus, (We aim to stop the tide from coming in)
I believe that we must take firm and balanced decisions to keep this virus under control. This is the only way to protect lives and livelihoods, and we must act now. Delayed action means more deaths from covid, it means more non-covid deaths, and it means more economic pain later, because the virus comes down slower than it goes up. We should stop it going up in the first place. Unless we suppress the virus, we cannot return to the economy we had; unless we suppress the virus, we cannot keep non-covid NHS services going; and unless we suppress the virus, we cannot keep the elderly and the vulnerable safe and secure. (We know it is impossible to suppress a virus, but it helps to implement our political agenda.)
The way to minimise disruption to other treatments is to deal with this
virus as effectively as we can, so that we do not have a huge spike of
people with Covid being admitted to hospital. (If we fake the science and sound concerned, we will be able to pull the wool over your eyes for sinister purposes.)
Anyone who ventures out onto the high street will see long queues of masked and muted figures. They probably cannot breathe but, we are told, breathing is dangerous. So we hold our breath. These flimsy shields have become the marks of subservience to a policy that, no one can deny, is bewilderingly inconsistent. The Government has stated on numerous occasions how ineffective face-coverings are; in one document, published on June 23rd, it stated: “The evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small.” And yet, after only a few months, this symbol of conformity is now normalised and unquestionable. We have become literally silenced and distanced from one another. Why? Because scepticism spreads through communication and scepticism is contagious
Professor Ramesh Thakur, former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy in Australia, has written a cracking piece in Spectator Australia on the real harms and dubious ethics of lockdowns.
We now know the fear-mongers were disastrously wrong, but persist with their heartless cruelty nonetheless. In April, the UN Economic Commission for Africa said “between 300,000 and 3.3 million African people could lose their lives as a direct result of COVID-19”. In February, Bill Gates warned of 10 million corona virus deaths in Africa. On October 15th, the real number was 38,977. Gates is a genius as a tech entrepreneur but his grasp of epidemiology is near the other end of the scale. Mind you, the tech sector is one of the very few to have done well financially from the lockdown.
The unbearable cruelty imposed by health bureaucrats without a distinguished medical research record has sucked the very humanity out of society: delaying interstate visits until too late to see a dying father or save one of the twins in the womb in need of urgent attention. As British MP Charles Walker said in a BBC radio interview on October 12th, for many elderly people, “being told that you’ve got to spend the next six or 12 months without human contact, without seeing the people that you love, without embracing your grandchildren, is a price too high”.
Millions will be pushed into extreme poverty.
Of course, the biggest tragedy will be across the developing world over the next decade, with over 100 million more people pushed into extreme poverty, 10s of millions of additional dead from increased infant and maternal mortality, hunger and starvation with more poverty and disrupted crop production and food distribution networks, sharp cutbacks in immunisation and schooling, and destruction of the informal sectors of the economy in which daily wage earners earn a pitiful living. Most countries will also need to prepare for potential spikes in mental health problems and suicides from the fear generated by exaggerated alarmism as well as the loneliness, isolation, financial ruin and despair caused by the lockdowns.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, is also on this list. Yeadon recently went on record stating "there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen," and that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to "manufacture a 'second wave' based on 'new cases.'"20
"They assumed, and still do assume, that there was no disease that went beyond the gravity of the seasonal flu; that the population had already acquired cross or T-cell immunity against this allegedly new virus; and that there was therefore no reason for any special measures and certainly not for vaccinations," Fuellmich says.
He also quotes21 from a scientific paper published in September 2020 by Yeadon and colleagues, in which they state:
"We're basing our government policy, our economic policy and the policy of restricting fundamental rights presumably on completely wrong data and assumptions about the coronavirus. If it weren't for the test results that are constantly reported in the media, the pandemic would be over, because nothing really happened."
Nowhere was there any excess mortality. Studies carried out by Professor Ioannidis and others have shown that the mortality of corona is equivalent to that of the seasonal flu; even the pictures from Bergamo and New York that were used to demonstrate to the world that panic was in order proved to be deliberately misleading.
Then, the so-called 'panic paper' was leaked which was written by the German Department of the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that in fact the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media
Among other things, the panic paper calls for children to be made to feel responsible, and I quote, 'for the painful tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the corona rules.'"
Fuellmich goes on to cite data showing that in Bergamo, Italy, 94% of deaths were not the result of COVID-19 infection spreading wild but, rather, the consequence of the government's decision to transfer sick patients from hospitals to nursing homes, where they spread infection — colds, flu and SARS-CoV-2 — among the old and frail.
This was also done by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo,22 in direct violation of federal guidelines,23 as well as in Minnesota, Ohio,24 Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and California.25 Fuellmich also points out the routine malpractice that occurred in some New York hospitals, where all suspected COVID-19 patients were placed on mechanical ventilation, which turned out to be a death sentence.
Lockdowns Were and Are Unnecessary
Based on the expert testimony collected so far by Fuellmich and his colleagues, lockdowns were unnecessary, and any claim to the contrary is wrong. The three reasons for this are:
- Lockdowns were imposed at a time when the virus was already in retreat and infection rates were starting to decline
- Scientific evidence shows a majority of people already have built-in protection against the virus due to cross-reactive T cell immunity from exposure to cold and flu viruses26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35
- The PCR test — which is being used as a gauge of infection rates and a justification for restrictive measures — "do not give any indication of an infection with any virus let alone an infection with SARS-CoV-2"
The PCR Test Fraud
First of all, the PCR test have not been approved for diagnostic purposes. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. As noted by Fuellmich:
"[PCR tests] are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease ... A positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does not mean that they're infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even the United States CDC … agrees with this and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests dated July 13 2020:36"Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014 … that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive," Fuellmich notes.
In summary, the PCR test simply measures the presence of partial DNA sequences that are present in a virus, but it cannot tell us whether that virus is active or inactive. Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious.
As noted by Fuellmich:
"These vaccines proved to be completely unnecessary because the swine flu eventually turned out to be a mild flu and never became the horrific plague that the pharmaceutical industry and its affiliated universities kept announcing it would turn into, with millions of deaths certain to happen, if people didn't get vaccinated.
These vaccines also led to serious health problems: about 700 children in Europe fell incurably ill with narcolepsy and are now forever severely disabled. The vaccines bought with millions of taxpayers' money had to be destroyed, with even more taxpayers' money."
14--Death rates for hospitalised Covid-19 patients are now almost a QUARTER of what they were during the peak of the pandemic, studies show
15--Whipping Up Panic--The WHO seems to be warning of the rise of a whole industry of public officials, media, and pharmaceuticals that is heavily invested in creating panic
What alarmed the WHO in those days was how public health authorities had taken a dangerous turn away from calming the public into sowing public panic.
The memo continues:
In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. The pharmaceutical industry and the media only reacted to this welcome boon. We therefore need fewer, not more “pandemic preparedness” plans or definitions. Vertical influenza planning in the face of speculative catastrophes is a recipe for repeated waste of resources and health scares, induced by influenza experts with vested interests in exaggeration. There is no reason for expecting any upcoming pandemic to be worse than the mild ones of 1957 or 1968, no reason for striking pre-emptively, no reason for believing that a proportional and balanced response would risk lives.
If I’m reading this correctly, the WHO seems to be warning of the rise of a whole industry of public officials, media, and pharmaceuticals that is heavily invested in creating panic whenever the next pathogen arrives, wildly exaggerating the threat in their own industrial interests. That’s a strong charge. It seems to have been back up by the unfolding events of 2020.
The key to responsible policy-making is not bureaucracy but accountability and independence from interest groups...
What we see in this remarkable memo is identical to the ethos and import of the Great Barrington Declaration, which since its release has been treated like some kind of radical and controversial statement. Actually, the World Health Organization said the same thing in 2011 with much tougher language and more biting analytics, essentially warning that the world is being trolled by interest groups with a vested stake in panic over rational public health measures.
What was true in 2011 is true today. More so than ever.
On the 5th of October, the WHO’s Dr Michale Ryan claimed “about 10%” of the global population had been infected with Sars-Cov-2. With an alleged death toll of roughly 1 million, that puts the infection-fatality ratio at roughly 0.14%.
Our current best estimates tell us that about ten percent of the global population may have been infected by this virus.
He said it, we reported it. The maths is not disputable. And yet Facebook has flagged it as “misinformation”:
Literally dozens of studies have been done on the IFR of Sars-Cov-2 to this point, many of them published and peer-reviewed in just the last few weeks. The average IFR in these studies has been much lower than 0.68% (usually between 0.1 and 0.2).
The “recent studies” healthfeedback cite are from June at the latest. They also never mention the immunological studies which suggest up to 80% of people may already have mucosal or cellular-based immunity, potentially dropping the IFR even further.
The policies of the spring are now known as “general population restrictions” and to avoid such policies again we must impose not lockdowns but other localized “restrictions.” Thus they conclude:
“The purpose of these restrictions is to effectively suppress SARS-CoV-2 infections to low levels that allow rapid detection of localised outbreaks and rapid response through efficient and comprehensive find, test, trace, isolate, and support systems so life can return to near-normal without the need for generalised restrictions.”
Just two weeks after he penned these words, all of Wales went back into lockdown.
Although branded as a 2-week “circuit breaker” measure to stem Covid spread, the rules of this new lockdown look all too familiar. All nonessential businesses must close. Residents are ordered to shelter-in-place “except for very limited purposes” such as obtaining groceries and medical supplies. People may not visit friends or family outside of their own households. Of course, there will be fines, forcible removal, and criminal prosecution for anyone who defies the mandate.
Next came Ireland, which announced its return to full scale lockdown for the next six weeks. In addition to its shelter-in-place instructions, the Irish measure limits internal travel for essential reasons and exercise to a 5 kilometer radius from home and establishes police checkpoints to enforce the restrictions.
The return to lockdown is all the more mystifying once one considers the fact that the first round of lockdowns starting in March had no discernible effect at mitigating the pandemic, save perhaps to slightly delay the onset of its successive waves..
And yet we’re right back to where we started this whole mess, complete with hollow 2-week timelines attached to the “circuit breaker” approach. Remember “fourteen days to flatten the curve” before it became 1, then 2, then 3 months?
It’s not just Wales either. Starting Saturday, the entire city of London will join other northern and western regions of the UK’s under the new “Tier 2” lockdown system – a category that bans socialization outside of one’s own immediate household, limits group interaction to only 6 people – even if outdoors – and shutters businesses between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am. If Londoners don’t behave in accordance with the undemocratically imposed dictates of the government’s science advisers, they risk being elevated to “Tier 3” – effectively a return to shelter-in-place, similar to Wales
Indeed, round two of government-imposed lockdowns have gone viral on the European continent as well. France reimposed 4 weeks of nighttime curfews on nine different population centers, a 6-person gathering rule, bar and restaurant closures, and even restrictions on regional travel. Madrid similarly reimposed a 15-day lockdown, barring residents from entering or exiting the city for non-emergency reasons. It too has a 6-person limitation on gatherings, as well as severe restrictions and overnight closures of businesses in the service industry. The Netherlands and Belgium each have “partial” lockdown policies restricting outdoor gatherings to groups of only 4 and strongly discouraging people from leaving their homes again. By all indications, these and similar policies are ratcheting up at a rapid pace, much as they did back in the spring.
Of course the pretext for reimposing lockdowns remains the same. Europe has entered the dreaded “second wave” of case spikes, ironically demonstrating the abject failure of lockdowns to stem the virus the first time around.
A quick aside: does anyone remember all those stories from over the summer, up to and including Dr. Anthony Fauci’s congressional testimony in August, in which the lockdowners lavished praise on Europe for supposedly shutting down the “right way” in the spring and successfully beating back the virus..
Unfortunately, lockdowner ideology continues to spread in the United States as well. True to form New York City recently reimposed zip code-based “hot spot” lockdowns last week – and promptly went to work issuing over $150,000 worth of fines to violators, once again targeting poor people and minority groups in the process.
With Ireland and Wales now announcing their returns to full lockdown,
and much of Europe trending in the same direction, who exactly is
misleading the public again?
a global perspective forces us to reconsider the importance of state interventions in favour of more enlightening factors, like each country’s age profile, underlying state of health and population density. This is consistent with research conducted by Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government back in May. Following the peak of the first wave in Europe, it found no correlation between the stringency of government measures and deaths from the virus.
.. biochemical engineer Ivor Cummins has highlighted its lower than typical mortality rate throughout 2019 compared to its neighbours. Otherwise an undoubted blessing, this presented a problem as soon as the pandemic struck in 2020. It meant Sweden was home to a larger proportion of seriously frail elderly citizens than Norway and Finland, which, experiencing higher rates of mortality among the vulnerable in 2019, had fewer to lose through Covid. This goes some way to explaining why Sweden trails its neighbours.
Sweden has suffered 584 Coronavirus deaths per million, compared to Britain’s 633, Spain’s 710 and Belgium’s 884. It also managed this relatively low death rate without destroying the economic and social lives of its citizens through despotic lockdowns, as all these other countries did.
Meanwhile, Sweden’s infection rate is stable and its seven-day rolling
death average has not climbed higher than three since late August. So
while we ponder another lockdown, ostensibly to kill the endless cycle
of restrictions and re-openings, Sweden gives every impression of having
foreclosed that same vicious cycle by avoiding lockdown in the first
"evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."