2020-12-22

Tier 4 imposed - mutant strain identified (in October!) - Christmas Lockdown! - Ports sealed, continent cut off! - Boris and Matt save the UK again!

"some experts think the episode has been overegged"

"no evidence” the new variant impacts the severity of the disease, for better or worse"

"Whatever the increase in transmission, the R rate for the new variant is still far below what it was at the start of the epidemic"

This Telegraph article has more - much more - well worth

2020-12-20

The AIER produces a quite arresting analysis of the events of 2020, taking an encompassing view of the various subjects (I'm not sure that they all strictly qualify as "sciences").

Quite rightly they take the proponents of lock-downs and other regressive measures to task:

"Yes, of course we must follow science, but we must do so in every field, not only in epidemiology but also in politics, economics, and philosophy"

"To be scientific in every field means to incorporate both theory and practice, to assess all real and relevant factors, not just a select few of them; it means cultivating a perspective that is likewise impartial (not biased), comprehensive (not narrow) view, and proportional (not imbalanced)"

A worthy review of how the science has

2020-12-20

The WHO are referencing the PCR Tests that are in widespread use across the globe.

"WHO has received user feedback on an elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents on open systems"

"As the positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 decreases, the positive predictive value also decreases" - in other words if the positivity rate decreases (ie: we need more cycles to amplify a smaller original signal) then the incidence of false positive results increases.

"Therefore, healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts, etc" - ie: don't rely on the PCR Test as your sole means of determining whether a person is infected.

So there you have it - the PCR test at high amplification cycles is unreliable as a diagnostic tool.

...

2020-12-15

Robin Tilbrook's BlogSpot for November 2020 asks some pertinent questions concerning what we can glean about our government's motivations from their activities since January 2020.

No doubt we all remember the original promise that it would just be for "3 weeks to flatten the curve and protect the NHS".

So how come Matt Hancock has just put London under Tier 3 (when London hospitals are not anywhere near being overwhelmed) and the mood music from the media is that lockdowns will continue until April and quite possibly beyond?

Worth reading, or you can watch the video below.

When we finally get the chance, there are Acts of Parliament to repeal, starting with the Coronavirus Act 2020.

2020-12-15

Many thanks to Lockdown Sceptics for this link:

Like / Dislike this video here.

More about this performer here.

2020-12-14

Results of the Pfizer Covid Vaccine trials are out.

john Rappaport is no fan of Big Pharma, but i find it hard to fault his logic when applied to the Pfizer vaccine roll-out.

We will see how it goes, but I couldn't recommend anyone to be first to volunteer for what must really (in the opinion of Dr Yeadon) be still regarded as an experimental vaccine.

The Guardian article referenced in John Rappaport's blog

2020-12-11

When the pandemic subsided in June and deaths became "normal" again, many of us thought that it was all over.

Not so fast! Deprived of their death statistics, the newspapers and governments world-wide simply transferred their attention to "cases", a suspect figure depending solely on a positive result from the now famous PCR Test.

Medical tests are normally applied at the request of a physician in order to confirm or exclude a suspected diagnosis, but today we see a frantic effort to apply it to all and sundry as widely as possible and to regard every positive result as an infection.

I won't rehearse these arguments yet again here, but a result of this strategy is that:

if the PCR Test should not be worthy of the trust that is currently accorded it, then the pandemic narrative is rebutted in short order.

Now "we all

2020-12-11

It is remarkable in these so-called enlightened times that this message needs to be repeated, loud and clear, until our "lords and masters" listen to us.

Who are SAGE that they have the exclusive ear of our government?

Why are dissenting voices, even dissenting scientific papers, routinely ignored?

Why are the perverse effects of lock-down never seriously considered so that a balanced judgement may be attained?

Why are we rushing blindly into a vastly expensive mass vaccination program without thought for the unknown but possibly serious adverse consequences that may ensue over time? All for a disease that primarily carries off only the already unhealthy and the very elderly?

In March the excuse of ignorance and urgency may have been plausible, but nine months on these factors are simply untenable.

2020-12-09

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

It's an old adage, but an adage that has stood the test of time.

Will "the vaccine" stand the test of time?

Drs Wodarg and Yeadon don't like what they see and "filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42)."

Good luck with that one - as time passes and we study the statistics we can see that the pandemic is primarily political rather than medical in nature, which to my tainted mind almost certainly means that no good will come of it.

Why did the West Copy China's Covid Lockdown?

2020-12-04

The Drive for the Covid Vaccines

Regardless of what we think about the cause of the peak in April, we are now in December and observing what has every appearance of a normal profile of winter deaths from respiratory infections (covid + flu + rhinovirus etc).

I’m by no means the only one who thinks so.

So a number of pharmaceutical companies have spent a lot of money, as little time as possible, and a huge investment in publicity, to develop and sell a vaccine for Covid.

Let us for the moment be trusting and assume that these vaccines will be both “safe” and

2020-12-04

PHE national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report Week 48

Public Health England’s week 48 (up to week 47) report on “flu-like” respiratory infections reveals:

“Cases”

Positive Covidt

A Sobering Review of Covid Death Statistics USA

2020-11-29

Anna Brees (ex-BBC) interviews Prof Robert Endres of Imperial College. The professor is a German national and brings an interesting German perspective to what is fundamentally an international problem, both at the medical level and at the political level.

"We are going somewhat back to the dark ages... it is not evidence-based anymore"

. 

Good to see Imperial tolerates a variety of viewpoints.

Anna has asked for this video to be shared, and we are happy to oblige.

2020-11-27

Lockdown Sceptics publishes an article by well qualified authors (including Dr Mike Yeadon) which forensically explains how reliance on the PCR test is producing a "pseudo-epidemic".

"A false positive pseudo-epidemic is a well described phenomenon in the medical literature which results in an exponential rise in diagnosed cases and deaths but no excess deaths. PCR testing is renowned for it and the “second wave” of Swine Flu in 2009 was entirely a false positive pseudo-epidemic only stopped by stopping the testing"

This is the simple key point at issue which fatally undermines the whole government-by-big-pharma covid narrative, and the cogent arguments presented in this article deserve everybody's full attention, especially as we learn today that "end of lockdown" most emphatically does not involve any significant relaxation of

2020-11-25

Del Bigtree is a long-time journalist campaigning for vaccine truth, and has been diligently researching who benefits from the proposed mass Covid vaccinations of the world.

This is their report - it names names and names vaccines. Conflicts of interest at the heart of a US medical regulatory authority? Surely not?

This follows on from previous ICAN lawsuits:

Sept 2018: "Stipulated Order Confirming non-Compliance with 42 USC 300AA-27C"

"In 1986 Congress charged Health and Human Services (HHS) with the primary responsibility of ensuring vaccine

2020-11-25

This is an article from the British Medical Journal dated 21st October.

"The ongoing phase III trials for covid-19 vaccines are some of the most consequential randomised trials ever done. In September, following months of campaigning for greater openness, four manufacturers made their full study protocols publicly available. The publications create a rare opportunity for “real time transparency” in which the conduct of clinical trials is opened to public scrutiny while the studies are still under way"

The fact that they feel that this new transparency is so significant I find very revealing - were previous vaccine trials not transparent?

"We may not like what we read, but with real time sharing of full protocols comes an unprecedented space for translating critique into action to improve trial design mid-stream. And there is much to

2020-11-23

The Conservative Woman publishes an article by John Mortimer which dissects the governments fig-leaf veneer of incompetence (to somewhat mix my metaphors).

Last February / March there was room for doubt, but for me that doubt disappeared in July when we were told to wear face masks (a) without any supporting evidence and (b) despite the fact that the virus had been at that point defeated without any need to wear face masks throughout the thick of the first lockdown. Something else was going on.

This feeling is confirmed as the government continues to refuse to publish any assessment of the risks inherent in lockdown to the national economy, the national health (not the NHS!), and the myriad livelihoods dependent on the success of small businesses. They know that such a risk assessment could not stand public scrutiny, yet feel confident that they will not be

2020/11/22

With so much written already about Covid we might be forgiven for wondering whether there is any possibility that there remain new truths to learn, but that would be to assume that true scientific endeavour has been carefully used to try to understand it.

However, It would seem that in many people's eyes the official bodies so beloved of governments world-wide may not have been so unbiased. How else to explain the manifest failure of our UK government to undertake and publish any kind of risk assessment on the downsides of their beloved and ever-changing lock-down strategies?

So I offer no apologies for drawing attention to two new offerings via (but not originating from) Lockdown Sceptics:

a) Asymptomatic Positive Test Results do Not Significantly Spread the Virus.

False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs